User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RexBanner (Talk | contribs) at 21:53, 14 October 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Archive Index

Post Comments Here

Edit Policy

To Mr. Schlafly respectfully,

I've made a number of edits I think improved the page on abortion you thought it prudent to revert. Namely;

1. Expanded the discussion of Dr. Lynn Rosenberg's testimony under cross examination - we're both jurists, and we both realize that the attorney was crossing to suggest that abortion can be harmful by contrasting it with a scenario wherein the alternative, pregnancy to term, is beneficial. You and I both know that that only demonstrates the benefits of parity, not the harm of abortion - legally it is not relevant in that it does not tend to prove the point it is material to (that abortion causes cancer). There's no need for this straw man. I Added an explanation of this statement with a cite to a peer reviewed journal discussing the benefits of early parity. I think this accords with the guidelines of reliability (A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated)

2. The sentence "Yet the abortion industry conceals this increased risk, just as the tobacco industry concealed its cancer risk for decades" is supported by this link [[1]] on tobacco rather than abortion. The truth or falsity of the tobacco cover-up is not what makes the truth or falsity of the abortion cover up. In the court room you or I would object; this is not material to the issue, abortion causing breast cancer.

3. Supplemented the one sentence paragraph "Just as organizations denied or failed to disclose the connection between smoking and lung cancer, many organizations aligned with liberal politicians deny the correlation between abortion and breast cancer despite numerous studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating a likely connection." If this claim is too vague to be supported it shouldn't be on a trustworthy encyclopedia. This is a true claim, there are many organizations aligned with liberal politicians who deny this correlation despite articles indicating its existence. I made a list of three specific examples and gave links to their denials, which I thought moved the page into accordance with the style guidelines on attribution and citation.

These all seem to me to be good faith improvements which add verifiable material or remove unverifiable material. I'm legitimately trying to improve this wiki and I think I've complied with its rules and etiquette. It would be very helpful to understand what is wrong with the above edits which seem to accord with both ordinary reason and the rules of Conservapedia. I don't think it steps outside a conservative christian viewpoint to make these corrections since none of them change any content, they rather supplement omissions and remove errors and so they could only be non conservative if the original propositions were non conservative. Since it was you who removed the edits I think you're in the best position to explain where they went astray. btw I did write a similar post on the abortion talk page, but it seems to not have caught anyone's attention. --BillyWest 16:00, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

quote templates

Hi Mr. Schlafly,

I wasn't sure if we had templates for this already, and I couldn't find any specifically for the purpose using the Search feature. With that in mind, I created a generic quote template for use anywhere on the site. If there isn't a need for this, I apologize for the inconvenience. Otherwise, I can copy the code to [[Template::Quote|a more official page]] for site wide use. Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 23:12, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Pages to delete

Hi Mr. Schlafly. I marked several pages for deletion so they could be cleaned up; when you have a moment, could you delete them please? Most are either broken redirects or obsolete talk pages. One is left over from a page merger that I performed a few days ago. Here are the pages:

  1. NOAA
  2. Evolutionary belief shallow and declining
  3. Historians
  4. Early termination of opt-out
  5. Intimate Partner Violence
  6. Talk:Intimate Partner Violence
  7. User talk:Cookanator
  8. Cosmic rays and cloud cover
  9. Talk:Cosmic rays and cloud cover

Could you or another administrator please delete these pages? Thank you very much! Kevin Davis Talk 17:44, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for deleting Early termination of opt-out. If you have a chance, could you or another administrator clean up the rest of the pages? Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 20:05, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

MediaWiki namespace help

Can you please take a look at MediaWiki_talk:Revision-info and MediaWiki_talk:Revision-info-current. Currently, MediaWiki:Revision-info and MediaWiki:Revision-info-current don't render on the top page revisions correctly (here's an example). I've listed the solution to the problem on the talk pages. I have experience with running MediaWiki websites and dealing with problems such as this. --Michaeldsuarez 19:44, 4 October 2011 (EDT)


User:SeanS unilaterally unblocked several accounts blocked by senior administrators without discussion or consensus, isn't that a good reason to remove his blocking rights? DMorris 14:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Rutgers Law School debate

Hi Andy, I notice you posted a mainpage story about the first amendment debate, I am interested because, as a libertarian (of sorts) and a proponent of free speech, I don't think games should be regulated so am interested in seeing/hearing/reading the debate. Is it available anywhere? Thanks, MaxFletcher 16:53, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

The sponsors plan to post the video. If and when I receive that information, I'll provide a link.--Andy Schlafly 17:53, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

World History Homework

Hello Mr Schlafly, thankyou for grading my papers thus far and for your insightful comments. In relation to your question, yes I am indeed Black British. However, the United Kingdom is perhaps not quite as obscure as you imply. My apologies for missing Homework Three - I'm a semi-professional bodybuilder and while travelling for a contest I was unable to complete that week's assignment. Thankyou for your continuing work, and God Bless! RexBanner 17:18, 9 October 2011 (EDT)


This is just a follow-up question to the one on evidence against evolution, are you saying that these instincts that these animals have are God given or that science simply has no explanation? Link to discussion in question GiveMeLiberty 19:39, 9 October 2011 (EDT)


In my opinion trimming (i.e. deleting) of questions instead of answering them is rude. I don't think that I expect to much when I ask you to answer to the following:

  • Will you come up with a meaningful review and comment on my extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue as you announced half a year ago?
  • Do you consider to create a namespace CBP for the Conservapedia Bible Project?
  • What do you hope to achieve by only trimming all those questions which don't please you? Do you want to make the concerned editors silently fade away? Or getting enraged by this treatment and doing something worth a block while losing their temper?

AugustO 09:00, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Did I cause a problem?

Hi Mr. Schlafly. I was adding categories to many of the uncategorized pages, including the World History Homeworks, and after a few dozen pages, "Edit" changed to "View Source" on every page I tried to edit, including my user and user talk pages. I hope I didn't cause an error in Mediawiki by adding so many categories in a short period. I wasn't under a block, but I didn't see any one else editing, and I wanted to make sure I didn't cause a problem. Everything seems to be fixed now, though. Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 10:28, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

It's no problem at all.--Andy Schlafly 12:23, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
Ok, thank you for letting me know! Kevin Davis Talk 14:12, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Explain block, please (unfinished conversation)

Andy, We - editors - wouldn't have to be cluttering up your talk page like this if you prevented Conservative from protecting his own page.

Andy, I understand why you deleted my question about User:Conservative's health because it should really be a private matter, but I don't understand why you blocked me for raising the question [*]. My question was motivated by a sense of compassion, which is a powerful concept in Islam. We invoke the compassion and mercy of God at the start of all our religious discussions: Bismillah al-rahman al-rahim, in which rahman means compassionate. Are benevolent ideas like compassion, mercy, justice and so forth less important in Christianity than in Islam? Perhaps you can enlighten me because I believe you are an expert on the Christian religion and have even written a new translation of the Bible.

[*] We both know, I think, that your claim that I violated the permitted ratio of talk page to main page edits is incorrect, because I have recently made significant improvements to several encyclopedia pages (check my Contribs log). KhalidM 16:26, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

KhalidM, if you want to demonstrate that you are compassionate and that your "concern" was not due to malice, why don't you create some articles which help demonstrate you are a compassionate person such as: World hunger, World poverty, Doctors Without Borders, Charitable organization, Non-profit fundraising and Philanthropy. Also, generally speaking, people who create content at wikis have more influence than complainers. Conservative 17:29, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
1. My question was directed at Andy, not you. Andy was the person who blocked me and he can speak for himself.
2. I have created content here but creating any more would just be a waste of time while Andy allows you to turn this site into a laughing-stock.
3. You seem to have enormously more time for wiki-editing than I do. Why don't you create articles about subjects related to compassion instead of wasting your time on the most revolting kind of obscenity? KhalidM 19:02, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
I didn't think you were here to create much content and we here merely to complain. No surprises. If you are an atheist posing as a Muslim, so be it. If you are a Muslim, Islam doesn't really have a great track record when it comes to sexual morality. For example, polygamy (4 wives). Mohammed married the 9 year old Aisha and Pakistan ranks #1 when it comes to sexually related Google searches. Conservative 17:48, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
Why this obsession with sexual morality? It's not a great argument for you to start. Do you want me to talk about the Pope who was the son of a previous Pope, or to explain how much of the world's pornography is made in the supposedly Christian USA? Instead I will simply express (again) my sincere and genuine hope that you recover from whatever ailment it is that's afflicting you.
As for your rather silly attempts to stir up religious antagonism, I can tell you that most moslems admire genuine Christian leaders like Pope John Paul I and Mother Teresa. We don't admire people who pretend to be Christians while ignoring the commandments of the prophet Jesus (our prophet too, remember) to treat other people with compassion and respect.
I've said enough. If you respond, I doubt I'll bother to reply because I can't waste any more time on your nonsense (I might reply to Andy, for whom I still have some respect, despite his failure to control your activities). KhalidM 18:30, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
I am Protestant. Second, I don't see us as having a productive conversation. Third, you can complain all you want, but until you create content in a larger degree, I don't think Andy is going to pay much attention to you. Generally speaking, people who create content at wikis are listened to more closely than people who largely complain. Conservative 20:19, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
No, I'm not going to create any more content on a wiki which is being systematically sabotaged by one of its own senior administrators. (And what does being protestant have to do with it...?! Even by your standards, that's an off-the-wall comment!) KhalidM 13:26, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
"Khalid", I have had very cordial relationships with Muslims in the past. For example, a Muslim told me anytime I visit his country, I could stay with his family. Also, a Muslim business person finding out that I was moving valued my judgment enough that he asked me to find investment property in my upcoming geographical area and that he would pay me for my trouble. "Khlalid", you don't come across as a Muslim, but rather as an atheist posing to be a Muslim. By the way, anytime I see a wide open atheism net, I certainly reserve the right to slam the ball in and no Muslim poser is going to stop me. Have a nice day. Conservative 16:08, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

What's going on here?

OK, I sign up, I edit a few articles then some idiot blocks me for trolling. How was I trolling? I tried to contact the idiot but guess what, I can't even edit talk pages and he doesn't give an email address. So I created a new account. Can someone unblock my old account - HenrikO - and I'll delete this one? Thanks. --HenrikO2 08:18, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Don't tell me...yer "innocent". In spite of what you pretend to have us believe, check user works. And how's that "day of reckoning" coming? Still planning yer float in the parade? Karajou 09:47, 13 October 2011 (EDT)


Earlier this week I was blocked by you, Aschlafly, without a reason for this block given. Granted, it was just for a day, but nevertheless stating a reason helps to learn from our errors - and seems to be just common courtesy. Yesterday, I was blocked by User:SeanS for one year. He gave a reason:

  • ‎ (90/10 rule violation: just give it up august, also, 90/10 violation)

I don't see how I violated the 90/10 rule and I find the statement just give it up august not only discourteous, but downright rude. SeanS shortened the block to one day - this was done without any apology or explanation. Again, even a block for one day was uncalled for.

Will the Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel (or whatever it is called today) put an end to this kind of intimidations of common users? I'm not very confident, judging e.g. from the most recent blocks by Ed Poor: first he blocks a frustrated editor for one week for incivility. When he realized that the actions of the sysop provoking this incivility were even worse, did he block the sysop for a week, too? No, suddenly, name calling isn't that bad any longer, and all parties involved are blocked for 10 minutes. And towards the editor this is called a one time act of mercy!

I realize that my comment provides lots of amusing block comments (a la: here's a block reason for you) for any sysop who choses to block me now, but I hope that all of you will resist the opportunity AugustO 12:45, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Hey Andy, I just noticed something: the articles you started and maintain are mostly open for people to improve, while the articles written by your fellow sysop Conservative are blocked to prevent potential improvement. Due to CP's blocking policy and guidelines, vandalism is dealt with swiftly and isn't really an issue here, so why are Conservative's articles always locked? I'd ask him, but his talk page is locked and Im scared to approach him, so do you know? --SpenserL 15:12, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

Spenser, CP has over 37,000 content pages. My edits largely centered on the topics of atheism, evolutionism and homosexuality as I thought Christian apologists/conservatives could tackle these topics better. Wired Magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged nerds and unfortunately many of these quarrelsome nerds are very obsessive and want to impose their will on the atheism/evolutionism CP articles so some of these articles were locked. However, Conservapedia certainly has atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles you are free to edit. Since you appear to be an atheist, why don't you add content to these articles: Atheist obsession, Atheistic style, Atheistic denial, Atheistic tools, Atheist gullibility, Atheists and hospitals, Atheist intolerance, Atheism and terrorism and other atheism related articles which you are free to edit? Plus, there are over 37,000 content pages at Conservapedia. Surely, there are other topics you want to edit besides atheism/evolutionism? - unless of course you an obsessive atheist. Are you obsessed with atheism/evolutionism? If so, I suggest you broaden your horizons. As William Shakespeare said, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." :) By the way, I just added a picture to Conservapedia's Pele article which is very short. Why don't you broaden your horizons and add content to this article? Conservative 15:46, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

World History Lectures Homework Six

Dear Mr Schlafly,

Would it please be possible to receive one or two comments of yours regarding the concerns raised on World History Homework Six?

Many thanks,

RexBanner 21:53, 14 October 2011 (EDT)