User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GregG (Talk | contribs) at 13:12, 23 April 2012. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Archive Index

Information about Conservapedia

Mr. Schlafly, I have a question regarding your teaching experience. I mean to insinuate no insult of course. You say that all of your students have passed a CLEP exam, or that some have done exceptionally well on some other standardized test. My question is this: How can we suppose that this success is not simply due to inherent student intelligence? My fellow classmates and I have taken many AP exams at my school, and we all have done very well on each test, even if the teaching was inadequate. Am i to still credit the inferior teacher with helping me to my successes? I am only curious. Thank you.

Hello Mr Schlafly, I've been reading a lot of Conservapedia articles about creation vs evolution. You are mainly expressing a Christian viewpoint. However, several of my friends are Hindus and it is written that Lord Brahma is the creator of all. How can you express disagreement over their viewpoints without that admitting that Bible is, after all, a book, too. Please reply. -Lily P.S. How do you pronounce your last name?

Hello Mr. Schlafly. User Jpatt redirected me to your biography, and I had several questions for you about your personal background and the site itself. If possible, our class work would be published in Loyola's primary publication, the Phoenix. 1. I read the information about the founding of Conservapedia, and I'm interested in more details. What drove you to make the choice to move from Ivy League law practice to online communication and media dissemination? Do you have any advice for someone looking to publish on the web, especially given that technology moves so quickly in the modern age? Thank you for the information. Sarah

The traditional media options have been:
  • write a book, with a typical best-seller reaching only about 30,000 people, and only one one topic
  • appear on television, prevented by the format from conveying anything of substance and reaching only a "dumbed down" audience
  • print a newspaper, which is too slow and anachronistic today, and dominated by biased liberals
Conservapedia is obviously better than all the traditional options. Conservapedia reaches far more people, on far more topics, than hundreds of best-selling books. Conservapedia provides substantive information in contrast with the television medium, and to an audience that is not dumbed down as TV viewers are. Conservapedia is also much quicker than newspapers, and free of the their liberal bias.
As an added, bonus, Conservapedia incorporates the best of the public. Your student newspaper should consider switching over to a format like Conservapedia to benefit from insights and information offered by your students, and to provide more content than the fixed format can. But some liberals in the media oppose opening their formats to more public input, because that reduces liberals' ability to censor and control. Increasingly, traditional media are about controlling information rather than providing it. Thank God that Conservapedia contributors are able to bypass that liberal censorship here.--Andy Schlafly 10:15, 3 March 2012 (EST)
I don't know how Loyola's newspaper works, but UConn's paper allows any student at the university to write for them, and with a few exceptions, can't censor content based on opinion (presumably because we are partially funded by University Funds. As of tomorrow, I'm going to be a writer for them, so I'm not going to cost myself a job by saying anything bad. But it does have a huge liberal bias. Gregkochuconn 19:22, 4 March 2012 (EST)
That's an interesting observation, Greg. As you suggest, I think that may be an advantage of state schools.--Andy Schlafly 20:39, 4 March 2012 (EST)
Could be. Then again, maybe not. It does lead to a lot of liberals getting in, but it also allows conservatives to voice their opinions. My understanding is that as long as it's not completely inappropriate (i.e. "kill all the black people") and as long as you can write 600 words about it, you'll get in. That does allow some people who are even further to the left than private papers to get in (we had one column a few weeks ago openly advocating socialism) but it also allows conservative students to get in when normally they would be ignored by the paper. But I should be careful what I say about it in public. Gregkochuconn 22:41, 4 March 2012 (EST)
Hello Mr. Schlafly,
My name is Ted. I'm another student in Communications 206, Writing for the Web, and I'd like to follow up on your responses to my colleague Sarah, if you don't mind. You describe how Conservapedia attracts an audience of a higher intelligence than television does, and this makes me curious, as studies have been conducted that find differing levels of intelligence among consumers of different forms of media. However, such studies have often had difficulty with mediums on the web because of the dynamic nature of their viewers. How do you quantify the average intelligence of your average viewer? Although it may be difficult, I would guess that it is certainly possible to create a rough estimate of the intelligence of an editor once they make several contributions, but I'm curious how this process works for someone who only views the project.
Also, you briefly discussed how the format of television prevents it from conveying anything of substance. Could you expand on this? Are you referring to technical limitations of television, like NTSC/PAL conflicts, or the traditionally non-interactive nature of television programs? If the latter, what is your opinion on newer forms of television that utilize Internet connections and interactive content, to list a few examples?
Our student newspaper functions on a similar model, since any student is allowed to submit work to the paper to have it published. The only editing or "censorship" that takes place is basic copy editing for grammar and location, because the newspaper has several distinct sections that are only filled with certain kinds of content. For example, if someone submits a classified advertisement to the section dealing with construction on campus, the article will be rejected with a note asking the student to resubmit it to the correct section. This is simply a courtesy to make the lives of the editing staff simpler. Also, as a private Catholic university, problems like the liberal bias you speak of are not widespread, least of all in our student works and publications. I do not speak for my university when I say this, but I personally believe that problems of bias would be *significantly* greater at a state school than a private religious institution. No population is homogenous, of course, but as a university that currently houses its own seminary, sends almost six buses worth of students to the March for Life in Washington, D.C. every year, and maintains a highly efficient budget that has allowed us to construct numerous new buildings and free ourselves from debt in less than two decades, I think the credentials of our university and student body are quite secure.
Thank you for the information and your time. I look forward to hearing from you.
It's a sad day when UConn sends more buses full of students to our basketball games in Hartford than you send to March for Life. But I digress. Yes, given that you have significantly more conservative students than the average institution, I'd imagine you're right. However, a private but nonreligious school could censor its students articles easily. I don't know if most of them do or not, though. I attended a summer program at Amherst College (hosted by the college but not directly affiliated with it) and at one point, we had to look through old campus newspapers. They have a huge liberal bias, far bigger than UConn's. Of course, Amherst is a far more liberal school than UConn. And I didn't work for the paper at Amherst, so I can't say for sure what goes on there. And as for our budget, we're going to go bankrupt in 2014 if we don't get a student fee increase passed. It's being voted on by students as we speak, and in a couple of days, I'll know if it got approved. Gregkochuconn 12:16, 5 March 2012 (EST)
Hi Greg. I think your comparison fallacy digresses, as you say, from the true intent of my statement, since a more valid comparison would be the number of buses each school sends to the March for Life, relative to their undergraduate populations. Moving past that, however, I do not believe the point is worth debating because there are many indications of the religious and political leanings of a school, outside of a bus count. I understand your point, though, and as a student, I know that the university could push our support for March for Life to a much greater extent. Even though "a private but nonreligious school could censor its students' articles easily," I fail to see how that applies to Loyola University, because we are most certainly *not* a nonreligious institution. The president of our university is himself a Catholic clergyman. What applies to private, nonreligious schools does not apply to our institution at all, because Catholicism is the core tenet of our school (our school's motto is a true testament to that, as it embodies our mission and goals succinctly). You openly admit that your school has a problem with bias, and impugning the integrity of a school that has a significantly lesser problem with the issue is irrelevant and a distraction from the issue at hand.
As to your other point, perhaps your university could learn a lesson from Father Garanzini's debt management expertise, if you are so close to becoming bankrupt? To be fair, a state school like yours is subject to the whims and problems of state budget difficulties, but nevertheless, Loyola University went through rough times and emerged a stronger school for it. Although the university does raise our tuition every three to four years to compensate for inflation, rising construction costs, etc. we have kept a handle on other costs, e.g. labor costs, through innovative means. Several of our more left-leaning students attempted to unionize student workers in the mess halls because several student workers complained about working when the mess halls were open, despite how contradictory that complaint may be. Thankfully, the school decided against these efforts and continues to use private contractors in every possible capacity to reduce costs. Maybe your school could adapt some of these ideas? I notice that the University of Connecticut is currently spending millions on its campus in Avery Point, including oceanography and marine biology programs. Perhaps your university should balance its budget *before* spending millions on programs like these? My university certainly spends money on programs that I question, but we have this ability because we are not in dire financial straits as you are.
However, university finances nor the biases of our respective universities are not the focus of my questions to Mr. Schlafly. I am interested in his work writing on the web, per the title of our course, and would like to constrain the discussion to those issues. If you have knowledge of the system from the server side, as I assume he does as the owner, then please feel free to incorporate your knowledge into an answer. Otherwise, I would greatly prefer his perspective on the site and my original questions. Thank you.
Ted, I'm surprised and impressed that Loyola sends six buses to the March for Life! That said, I don't think I criticized your college (I am not very familiar with Loyola, and would like to learn more about the school).
Conservapedia is a far better medium for communicating, educating, learning, etc., than television, books and newspapers are. I didn't say that Conservapedia users have higher intelligence than television-watchers, although on average I expect that is true. My point is that the medium and format of Conservapedia is far more substantive than television is. This simple conversation and debate could not even occur on television, with its limiting sound-bites, commercial breaks, and overall "dumbed down" format. Forty years ago a guest on a talk show would have something like 7 minutes to make a point. Today it is more like 7 seconds! Counterexamples to an Old Earth are profound and take longer than 7 seconds to communicate and understand, and benefits from the printed word just as textbooks do. Moreover, no host on mainsteam television is going to invite someone on to speak to profound issues that may "offend" a portion of the liberal audience, as the truth often does. We are not so constrained here.
Added to that are the discussions that ensue on Conservapedia, like this one. How often does a television viewer get a chance to open a dialog with the persons seen on the television? Virtually never, of course.
As to the student newspaper's procedures for accepting and editing submissions, why not allow that immediately, wiki-style, as Conservapedia does?--Andy Schlafly 18:17, 5 March 2012 (EST)
My point with the private university argument is that a private school (receiving no state funds) could easily censor the conservative viewpoint (which is what we were originally talking about). I don't know if any do, but they could. UConn's paper cannot do that. However, we do try to keep a journalistic standard, meaning "Stop hating on Obama" (actually the example used as what NOT to write) will not get in. I don't know if we've had any issues in the past with people being told they couldn't get printed because they failed to meet a journalistic standard, but as long as you're a competent writer capable of writing 670-760 words on your topic, you should get in. So that would be the problem with doing it wiki-style. Also, that would make it hard to distribute print copies, although we may scale back on those if the fee increase doesn't pass. (Results should be announced soon and since voting was done online, I have no idea what is taking so long) since the fee increase failed. Gregkochuconn 08:54, 8 March 2012 (EST)
Also, to clarify, the Daily Campus is in danger of going bankrupt. The University itself is not. Gregkochuconn 09:02, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Elvis Presley movies

Mr. Schlafly, in this article, the formatting is set off by the infoboxes used for each movie. Is there a way to fix this, or would creating a separate article for each movie (I am not necessarily sure on the site's policy) be more acceptable? And if the latter is the more acceptable option, could you delete the old article after I transfer the information? I will edit the Elvis template accordingly. I hope to also put up image requests for film posters to add to the infoboxes as the article(s) develop further. Thanks.--James Wilson 16:43, 3 March 2012 (EST)


Andy, I have a disagreement with User:Ed Poor over the name of a page. The page is for the It Gets Better Project. The official name includes the word "Project". Ed disagrees that it is a real project and therefore believes it should not be part of the title. I, on the other hand, do not believe that personal opinions on that should get in the way of factual information. Such an opinion should be in the article if he wishes it to be included. I was hoping that you would offer your opinion on the matter since I do not wish to get into an edit war. Thanks, Ayzmo :) 15:59, 4 March 2012 (EST)

"It Gets Better" is a lot of things: a slogan, a video, an actual "dead tree" book [1] and a campaign. Feel free to make a section about any distinct project you may discern, at the It Gets Better page. And also remember even the media don't call Savage's partner a "husband". --Ed Poor Talk 20:41, 4 March 2012 (EST)


Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I saw that you deleted the vandalism at Talk:1. However, you must have inadvertently left the article page, 1, intact (even though it is vandalism created by the same blocked user). It is currently marked for speedy deletion. GregG 19:21, 4 March 2012 (EST)

Thanks. I just removed it as you suggested.--Andy Schlafly 20:30, 4 March 2012 (EST)


Dear Professor Schlafly,

Super Tuesday is tomorrow and we still haven't made an endorsement. I have raised this issue several times and done my best to edit the important articles in this area, but have received little support from anyone on this site. I am asking you with the utmost sincerity to make the right choice and endorse a conservative candidate in the Republican primaries ASAP. As I said in my post on the main page talk page, the left side of the main page is entirely devoted to the Question Evolution Campaign. This seems like a serious strategic error. There is a real campaign going on right now (the Republican Primaries) that will effect the course of the nation far more than a few youtube videos and a blog about evolution ever will. Please consider making an endorsement tomorrow, the fate of the nation could be in your hands... --CraigF 23:20, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Government funding for anti-Christian values

Hello Mr. Schlafly. I just created the article Government funding for anti-Christian values, and while I plan to continue to expand it, I just wanted to see if I could get your input on the topic (and maybe if a better name exists for the page). Thanks!--MorrisF 16:34, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Excellent Site Andy.

Just an libertarian-minded Conservative (since around 2007) passing through and letting you know that:

1. I like the site

2. Your Mom is an awesome lady!

Be well sir, and keep fighting!

-Pat Thoughts and Rantings DetroitRight 02:36, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

Archives for talk main page faulty

Hi Andy, the index for Talk:Mainpage's archives contains incorrect internal links, and is out of order. Archive 108 actually links to archive 109, nothing links to archive 108, and archive 107 is non-existant, it merely being a link to archive 106 again. I just thought I should bring this to your attention, if you should like to fix it--CamilleT 18:56, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

Mainstream media attacks on arbitration

So I was reading about the AT&T data throttling case where AT&T elected to pay the judgment and not appeal the small claims ruling [2] and the article, expectedly, misrepresents the nature of arbitration in saying that "[small claims court] also doesn't require parties in the proceeding to keep their mouths shut after a decision is rendered, as arbitration does." AT&T has not had a confidentiality requirement in its arbitration clause in over half a decade, and most of the major companies with arbitration clauses also do not require confidentiality of the award. To me, this seems like yet another attempt by the liberal media to malign arbitration and represent that the lawyer-benefiting class action is the only way that consumers can recover damages. We should cover this more on Conservapedia since the mainstream media appears to be content to lie and distort legal issues. GregG 17:15, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

This is an interesting observation and you may be right. But is the article wrong in its explanation? You did not cite anything to support your view that the article is wrong.--Andy Schlafly 19:51, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
At least with regards to AT&T, I can tell you that this article is wrong. In 2003, the 9th Circuit held a confidentiality provision in AT&T's agreement unconscionable (Ting v. AT&T). According to McKee v. AT&T Corp. (Wash. 2008), by March 2005, AT&T had revised its agreements to remove the requirement that the consumer keep the arbitration confidential. In the 2009 ninth circuit opinion in Laster v. AT&T Mobility (which was overturned by the Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion), the panel indicated that under revisions to AT&T Mobility's agreement between 2006 and 2008, customers were not required to keep arbitrations confidential. So as it pertains to AT&T Mobility, the article appears to make the suggestion that if Mr. Spaccarrelli had gone to arbitration instead of small claims court, he would not be able to post documents on the web relating to his claim. This is false, and it has been false for several years.
As I understand it, the trend in consumer agreements (at least prior to Concepcion) has been to remove non-consumer-friendly provisions (except for class-action waivers), such as unfair fee allocations, limits or bars against recovery of certain types of damages, inconvenient arbitration locations, and the like. With a few exceptions (the Starbucks gift card agreement and the Wells Fargo account agreement), I do not know of any consumer-business arbitration agreement that requires the parties to keep the arbitration confidential. I could try to research some law review articles to help make my point further, but I am short of time right now, and I had better be finishing up. The point is that the article is wrong in its claim that arbitration generally requires parties to keep the arbitration confidential (both with respect to AT&T and with respect to consumer-business agreements), and that this misrepresentation serves to discredit arbitration as an alternative to class action lawsuits.
Let me know if you want me to explain further. As I said, I'm a bit pressed for time right now, so I'll leave my response at this. GregG 21:33, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

Conservative Dictionary

Would you consider starting a conservative wiki dictionary similar to Wiktionary, but with a focus on conservative words? I think a lot of editors would be enthusiastic about the idea. KingHanksley 18:10, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

We already have Essay:Best New Conservative Words. I'm not sure building an entire dictionary is time well spent when, for example, that time could be spent on translating the Bible instead.--Andy Schlafly 19:49, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
Well, I think it could serve a few purposes. It could work side-by-side with the CBP. As editors discover the biblical significance of certain words, they could add them to the dictionary. It could also help to sharpen the linguistic skills of Conservapedia editors, which is very important to protect the site. And it could be a project in which users with no expertise in ancient languages could participate more easily than in the fairly limited role they could play in translation. KingHanksley 00:27, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
You make some good suggestions here. How about starting it as a "category", and including terms like Son of Man?--Andy Schlafly 01:10, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
Andy, I took your suggestion, and began adding words to the project, only to discover this already existed (I had somehow missed this early). . I'll redirect my efforts to helping with that existing project, which is much more developed than my own. KingHanksley 16:33, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

Stolen concept - new example

What’s wrong with my new example at Stolen concept? It’s almost identical to an existing example. Ann Coulter, George W. Bush and Tony Blair surely believe that we should invade other countries to bring freedom to their people. Is it just a lack of citations? Here’s one for Ann Coulter - I can provide some more if that’s the only problem. And please don’t block me, I had to create a new account just so that I could ask this question. The create account page says “Real name is optional”, BTW, and can you please provide a link to your user name policy. Zsedcftgbhujmko 08:58, 19 March 2012 (EDT)


I live in NJ not too far from you. How are you enjoying the weather? Look at the 10 day forecast. Is that not awesome?? I love warm weather. NSmith1 09:24, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

Would you consider a more Christian website name?

Hi Mr. Schlafly, I was considering the name of the site Conservapedia and wondering if you are open to rethinking the name. Conservatism is obviously great in a lot of respects. At the same time, God says: "The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself" (Proverbs 11:25). So God's people must be liberal, in some respect, at least in this respect. Conservative is an ideologically packed word that has a lot of meaning today, but it can create problems because it does not have a clear meaning. Also, it is not a Bible word, so we can't pinpoint a Biblical definition. Would you consider renaming to a more God focused and Biblical name? Is a redirect from conservapedia possible? What about Christapedia? God bless you. Joseph777 17:44, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

P.S. Some name that is glorifying to the Lord would be great. Joseph777 17:51, 21 March 2012 (EDT)


Thanks for the night-editing permission. That will be useful to me, here in the UK.--CPalmer 10:08, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

libbiesarefascist's pages

I cant delete them, so I thought you should know.JonM 21:26, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

Backup of pages lost during March 25/26 outage

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I have RSS feeds with some of the edits made during March 25/26, as well as a copy of the talk page for E=mc^2. Please let me know soon if you want me to put up my copy of those pages, as otherwise, they will be deleted when I close my browser and/or reset my RSS feeds to the normal practice of deleting daily. Thanks, GregG 23:24, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

That's wonderful, Greg! If not too much trouble, could you repost your latest copies of those RSS feeds, perhaps as RSS:________ or as overwrites of the existing pages to which they refer? We were able to salvage most, but perhaps not all, of the key pages like E=mc2. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly 23:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Fortunately, I have most of the edits going back to Tuesday the 20th, except for when my computer was not on. I also a copy of the 500-edit recent changes page before the crash. The former is about 6MB, so I'm looking for a good place to upload it, as well as the recent changes html and the copy of the talk page of E=mc^2. GregG 23:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Would it be easiest simply to email the files to Schlafly 23:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
I will do that. GregG 23:46, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Sent. I can also work on putting up user-readable versions of the texts on a page. GregG 23:50, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
The mail has not arrived yet, but I'll keep looking. Thanks again.--Andy Schlafly 23:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for the promotion

I was not expecting to have my account promoted based on my work, but I appreciate the kind gesture. GregG 01:27, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

Attention Seeking :-)

I asked a couple of questions at Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton to understand your objections against the formula. I hope that you will answer these questions! Thanks, AugustO 08:32, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

Kim Jong Il

Your latest addition to MPL regarding the golfing abilities of Kim Jong Il has caused some controversy. It may be that on reflection you might wish to reconsider your views on the meaning of the article cited. [3] [4]. --DamianJohn 20:43, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I'm not sure what the issue is. "ESPN" is not part of the lamestream media. ESPN even has cordial interviews of Tim Tebow.--Andy Schlafly 20:48, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
You wrote "The lamestream media did not question the communist press's claim that Kim Jong Il scored 11 holes-in-one in his very first golf game", and then cited an ESPN article which some have argued [5] says the exact opposite of what this. Do you have another source for the claim that the lamestream media uncritically accepted the claim about Jong Il's golfing prowess? --DamianJohn 20:54, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
The statement says that "The lamestream media did not question the communist press's claim that Kim Jong Il scored 11 holes-in-one in his very first golf game." There would not be an affirmative link demonstrating a lack of questioning, and I'm not aware of any counterexamples.--Andy Schlafly 22:45, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

(I took away a rude and unnecessary comment. I know that's probably against the rules, but I hate stuff like that)
Here are some counterexamples I found.
Cheers! EricAlstrom 23:03, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Are your links to support my claim, or oppose it? I ask because your New York Times link (the only one I read) does not deny the communist press's claim that Kim Jong Il scored 11 holes-in-one in his very first golf game.--Andy Schlafly 23:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
The NYT article you refer to also quotes Rick Santorum as saying that Kim Jong Il was less of a security threat than Iran because Kim “doesn’t want to die; he wants to watch N.B.A. basketball.” reference. Are we also to assume that you think Mr Santorum was also being truthful in this and that as he did not explicitly condemn KYI in the quote he was in favour of him and supported him? Davidspencer 08:35, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
Santorum's statement in no way implies that he supported Kim Jong Il.
By the way, the New York Times's article absurdly implied that the communist media might have been partially truthful in claiming that Kim Jong Il bowled a perfect "300" in his first game.--Andy Schlafly 10:16, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
I assume that the New York Times hasn't the habit of inserting smilies, but relies on the intelligence of the readership to spot irony and sarcasm. Unfortunately this approach seems to fail sometimes. AugustO 10:23, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
Wow, maybe much of the liberal claptrap in the New York Times is actually irony and sarcasm that a reader who thinks for himself should quickly recognize!--Andy Schlafly 11:00, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
The probability of even the best golfer in the world getting that many hole in one is astronomical.

This illustrates the absurdity of taking news on face value, from a country where independent reporting is not allowed. Does anyone remember the Potemkin Village affair? Or the Pulitzer Prize that NY Times reporter got on false pretenses? Do people still think Healthcare in Cuba is anything to write home about?

Liberals love to make claims, confident that no one will check up on them. --Ed Poor Talk 10:17, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

Lost soul

You're a lost soul Andy, but we can save you. DavidKMoore 18:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

Anybody out there....

... to block JimReeves? AugustO 08:32, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

We should be nicer

After seeing all the ranting and harsh words to Liberals, Democrats, and Conservative users that are trying to fix something that's wrong (that category includes me), I want to share 2 Bible passages:

 1 John 3:11-15 NIV

11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

 Proverbs 15:1

1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

-JonnyAmerican 10:29, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

Question about blocking and username policy

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I noticed that accounts with usernames violating our username policy are blocked, but account creation is typically allowed (to allow the user to choose another username) and autoblock is typically disabled. I noticed that username blocks are often for a finite but lengthy amount of time (1 year, for example). My practice has been to infinitely block an account with a username violating our policy (with account creation allowed and autoblock disabled), as the mere passage of time will simply not turn a unacceptable username into an acceptable one. But perhaps I am doing this wrong, so I am asking for your guidance in this regard.

(By the way, I find that the choice of username is often an indicator of whether the account will be used for spam. Typically, spammers who hit wikis like Conservapedia don't bother to adjust their scripts to account for our policies.)

GregG 18:10, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Greg, your points are good ones. Your second paragraph is completely correct. As to your first paragraph, infinite blocks are disfavored because most people (particularly vandals) move within a few years and an infinite block can prevent a legitimate user from accessing via that same IP address. Also, while most vandals do not reform, some do, and "infinite" is a very long time indeed!--Andy Schlafly 18:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
As I understand it, when none of the blocking checkboxes are checked (which gives the description "autoblock disabled" in the block log), anyone from the IP address of the blocked account can edit using an existing account (if autoblock were enabled, it would cause a temporary block of the account used to make the edit), and a new account can be created from that IP address (which would not be allowed with the setting "account creation disabled"). I can check the MediaWiki documentation, but I think this is how it works. Of course, infinite blocks are a long time, but, as I understand it, blocked users can edit their own talk pages (unless the setting is changed on Conservapedia), so a reasonable justification of why their username meets Conservapedia's policy of having a username based on the user's real name should merit an unblock. GregG 18:27, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

John 3:16

Could you change the link on the main page from John 1-7 (Translated)#Chapter 3 (scroll below to see John 3:16) to John 1-7 (Translated)#3:16? That should be much more convenient!

AugustO 18:31, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

The link has been improved as suggested!--Andy Schlafly 21:07, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Happy Easter!

I wish you a very blessed Easter/Resurrection Sunday! "Alleluia! Christ is Risen/The Lord is risen indeed. Alleluia!" GregG 01:23, 8 April 2012 (EDT)


I keep noticing vandals on the recent changes, but because I cant delete thier pages, or block them, I am restricted to warning them via thier talk page, and hoping they stop. Is there a updated noticeboard for such activities?DorMouse 22:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

An idea (Elvis Presley directory)

I was working on the Elvis Presley movies series and thought of an idea. After I finish a write-up of each film, how about a reference page to the Elvis Presley series of articles? It would give basic information and links to articles on the films, albums, concerts, etc for users to go for information? Then link to this page on the main article. Does this seem like a good idea?--James Wilson 10:42, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I hope you do not mind, but in the absence of a response I made a rough draft here. If you do not mind, I will continue working on as my schedule permits. Many thanks.--James Wilson 13:19, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

I have added some more entries to the page and hope it is suitable for this site. Many thanks, --James Wilson 11:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

For your information

Hi Aschlafly,

I (RolandPlankton) have recently taken part in a discussion re 'GPS and relativity'.

My main interest is in developing and improving articles in which I have some competence, as you can see from the lists of things I plan to do at User talk:RolandPlankton. In particular I will be looking at articles in the areas of formal grammars, computing, mathematics, plus a few assorted items in which I take a personal interest. I don't expect much controversy in these areas. My educational background at degree level includes mathematics, physics, economics, accounting, and computer science. I have a lot of experience with computers. I am also a Christian and active in my local church, including leading some services.

I don't intend to follow your edits or anything like that, but I am keeping an eye on various physics articles, so if I notice some strange claim (from you or anyone else) then I will certainly ask for some justification for that claim in the form of references. I feel that Conservapedia:Commandments 2 and 5 may be relevant (Always cite, Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry). May I suggest that you actually check your physics carefully before making strange claims (e.g. GPS clock rate being due to quantum mechanics), since making such strange claims which are then discredited does not help your reputation as an editor.

May Conservapedia become more trustworthy. RolandPlankton 19:42, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for your suggestion, Roland, and for your substantive edits. I did research the lack of connection between GPS and the Theory of Relativity and am fully confident about it. Of course you (and anyone else) is free to form your own conclusions.--Andy Schlafly 20:19, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page and user talk page

I appreciate it. GregG 17:31, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Ditto. RolandPlankton 17:36, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Update to differences with Wikipedia?

AugustO's recent edit summary brought to mind the differences that Conservapedia has with Wikipedia (see Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia). I noticed that the page has not substantially changed since 2007, and in the span of five years (which is a lot of time by Web standards), it seems that Wikipedia has changed. Here are some examples:

  • Reuse of material. In 2009, Wikipedia migrated their content licensing to CC-BY-SA, so that people who want to reuse Wikipedia content can comply with the far simpler CC-BY-SA license rather than the GFDL (which I agree is a burdensome license). Also, a link to our page on Wikipedia copyright might be helpful.
  • Genuine volunteer effort. It is unclear what the "money-making scheme" referred to in point 3 is. Thus, it is hard to tell whether Wikipedia still promotes this purported money-making scheme today. I think some clarification would be good to help assist readers who do not recognize the money-making scheme referenced in this difference.
  • Conciseness. This is a good point. However, the second sentence's parenthetical phrase "(through its use of stubs)" should be changed to "(through its use of stub templates)", since the stub templates give the reader and volunteers the misconception that short articles are lacking.
  • Pornographic images. Wikipedia openly admits that it does not censor pornographic or otherwise adult images. I think the point should be clarified to state that the images on Conservapedia are family-friendly. As can be seen by featured content on the main page, Conservapedia has a role in providing informative conservative articles about sensitive topics; the difference is that Conservapedia does not shock the reader with obscene images just because the topic is sensitive.
  • Original works. This, I think, was misinterpreted by AugustO. It should be clarified to say that Conservapedia allows original, attributed work in the Essay, Debate, and Mystery namespaces, as well as conservative insights in articles. Those, however, do not need to be attributed to the author, in my understanding.
  • Not driving away newcomers. Since anonymous users (editing by an IP address) cannot edit Conservapedia anymore, this should be updated.
  • Professional usernames. This should link to our username policy that encourages usernames based on editors' real names.

These are my suggestions for updates to the differences. Of course, the page could be marked as "historical", since it is a crucial work in the history of Conservapedia (I can't believe it now over five years old!). Let me know what you think. GregG 02:00, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Your comments are informative, but I don't see a need for substantial changes despite the passage of five years. To take the first example, the CC-BY-SA license is simpler, but still far more cumbersome than Conservapedia's policy. The claim of free knowledge for all rings a bit hollow with Wikipedia's licensing burdens. If Wikipedia wanted to do some real good for the world, then it would be more supportive of free, unburdened reuse, as Conservapedia is.--Andy Schlafly 21:35, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
Conservapedia's policy states that "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees or stopping unauthorized copying or mirroring of entire parts of this site." This is hopelessly vague for reuse without legal ramifications (what is an "entire [part] of the site"? what does "protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees mean"?, what is "self-defense"?). Although CC-BY-SA has many more legal terms, it is an absolute guarantee that if you comply with all the full legal terms, you are licensed and do not have to worry about copyright problems. This is far more useful for reusers of encyclopedia content. I do agree that if the text is Conservapedia is truly in the public domain (i.e., without the special exceptions noted above), it would be easier to use than Wikipedia. As it stands, though, these vague exceptions create such a legal liability that makes reuse by any sort of enterprise with funds legally risky. Further, "Conservapedia may clarify and amend its copyright from time to time by updating [its copyright document]." This means that even if a reuser complies with the current Conservapedia license, it may change. This may have unexpected costs. CC-BY-SA, on the other hand, is irrevocable (except for the untested case of termination of transfers that can only occur at least 25 years after the copyright is secured).
I've seen Wikipedia content all over the web. There are mirrors of Wikipedia, print versions, and Wikipedia content is incorporated into for-profit sites like Facebook and not-for-profit organizational and educational pages. CC-BY-SA allows this, so long as the requirements are satisfied. Conservapedia's reuse requirements and restrictions on material (which are a moving target) seem much more nebulous and legally difficult to comply with. GregG 13:51, 19 April 2012 (EDT)
I respectfully disagree. Conservapedia's policy is far more open and free than Wikipedia's. The narrow exception of self-defense on Conservapedia has never, as far as I know, caused any confusion or ever interfered with any legitimate reuse of content.
Wikipedia's complex rules, on the other hand, encourage people to impose restrictions on reuse of their own submissions. A truly free resource of knowledge like Conservapedia would not encourage people to place restrictions on what they post, as Wikipedia's policy does.--Andy Schlafly 00:32, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
Sorry, what complex Wikipedia rules? The CC-BY-SA licence applies which means that basically you can copy anything you like from Wikipedia provided you acknowledge the source, and you can't claim your own copyright on any copied material. How is this complex? RolandPlankton 13:28, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
The CC-BY-SA license is more than 3,100 words. Moreover, it is hypocrisy for Wikipedia to pretend to promote free, unrestricted knowledge while simultaneously encouraging use of the CC-BY-SA license.--Andy Schlafly 14:21, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
What hypocrisy? Herewith a summary of the CC-BY-CA license:

You are free:

  • to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
  • to Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

  • Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
  • Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

With the understanding that:

  • Waiver—Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
  • Other Rights—In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:
    • your fair dealing or fair use rights;
    • the author's moral rights; and
    • rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
  • Notice—For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do that is with a link to

Above adapted from Wikipedia.

You can copy it and adapt it, provided you say where you got it from (which is hardly a serious restriction). The only restriction is that if you adapt it and distribute it, then your adaptation must also be under the same licence, which is only a restriction on those who wish to keep it secret or charge for it. The general intention is that Wikipedia should always be freely available to anyone. The licence use copyright laws to ensure that it remains free. RolandPlankton 16:06, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
Your explanation is clearer than the 3,100+ word license itself, so you should be commended. That said, I don't think Wikipedia should be encouraging red tape like this. Wikipedia should be encouraging truly free knowledge ... as Conservapedia does. For example, requiring attribution is contrary to the public domain. Conservapedia does not require attribution, but apparently Wikipedia does by imposing this license. Given that Wikipedia is open editing and benefits from the public, why should it want to insist on attribution when the public uses what the public contributed there?--Andy Schlafly 22:21, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
Some authors reasonably have objections to their work being disseminated under someone else's name (see moral rights). Other authors want to require that derivative works be licensed under the same license, in order to promote free content in two ways: first, by ensuring that it is not closed up and commercialized by a for-profit company, and, second, to promote projects that also license works similarly by allowing them access to the same content for redistribution and modification. Of course, editors are free to give more permissions than the minimum, so some editors will waive the share-alike requirement, while others will place their edits in the public domain, free from any copyright restrictions. It's the same sort of difference of philosophy that distinguished public domain code from code licensed under a BSD-style license (which essentially only requires attribution) and from code licensed under a GPL-style license (similar to CC-BY-SA, but for software). By balancing the interests of contributors in determining how they want their contributions to be used with the interests of creating a freely based encyclopedia, Wikipedia tries to create the most content that can be used most freely.
Also, I should mention that there are lots of things that can be done with Wikipedia articles under CC-BY-SA (that, even excluding editors' choices to license their contributions more freely) which are not clearly allowed under Conservapedia's policy, such as
  1. Creating versions of articles tailored to a curriculum on a school or home school website.
  2. Publishing a print version of the encyclopedia.
  3. Creating an offline mirror copy of the encyclopedia.
  4. Engaging in criticism of the articles.
GregG 01:22, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
Note the red tape "Above adapted from Wikipedia" in the above summary of CC-BY-CA license; doesn't seem too excessive to me.
If I was placing the above in a serious article I would probably give a slightly more detailed attribution:
"Above adapted from Wikipedia [6] accessed 21 Apr 2012"
Some simple questions relating to Conservapedia articles (excluding talk pages, user pages, etc.):
Are Conservapedia articles in the public domain?
Are Conservapedia articles copyrighted?
If 'yes', who owns the copyrights?
Can I, without asking anyone, make say 50 copies of an article and hand these copies out to students?
Can I, without asking anyone, combine a number of Conservapedia articles and publish them as a book?
Can I, without asking anyone, take a complete copy of Conservapedia tfo put on a DVD for those without internet access?
Most of these questions should have yes/no answers. RolandPlankton 10:57, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
Conservapedia's copyright policy is less than 300 words long, compared with Wikipedia's 3100+ word policy. See Conservapedia:copyright. Conservapedia's policy has not changed substantively since July 2007, while Wikipedia has a patchwork of policies that apply at different times.
Accordingly, the easy answer to all of your last three questions above is an unqualified "yes". I don't think Wikipedia would give an unconditional "yes", but you're the expert on Wikipedia's policy, so can you tell us?--Andy Schlafly 11:06, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
What about explicit answers to the first three questions? After all, you wrote almost all of Conservapedia:copyright so you should know what it means.
Wikipedia also answers 'yes' to the last three questions. Indeed, relating to the book question, Wikipedia has a link in the left hand column (under print/export) which makes it easy to collect articles to form a book.
Would the Conservapedia answer 'yes' still apply if the purpose of handing out articles to students was to criticise or poke fun at Conservapedia?
I note that Conservapedia:copyright includes a phrase "revocable ... for stopping unauthorized copying or mirroring", while my questions explicitly said "without asking anyone", i.e. without seeking authorization. There seems to be a slight discrepancy here. Perhaps you could clarify. RolandPlankton 11:43, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
I don't think Wikipedia can answers those questions with an unqualified "yes". Please explain further, in light of the restrictions of the CC-BY-SA burdens. Also, your quote of Conservapedia:copyright left out a key limitation for "self-defense".--Andy Schlafly 13:14, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
"Can I, without asking anyone, make say 50 copies of an article and hand these copies out to students?"
Wikipedia says yes. From CC-BY-CA summary above:"You are free: to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work" ... "Under the following conditions: You must attribute the work". So on each copy add a line "copied from Wikipedia (article name)". Not really much of a burden, as I have already illustrated in my attribution for the CC-BY-SA summary above.
"Can I, without asking anyone, combine a number of Wikipedia articles and publish them as a book?"
Wikipedia says yes. Provided you attribute the articles to Wikipedia (whether you can persuade anyone to buy a book of articles you can read for free is another matter). As previoously mentioned, Wikipedia encourages this book idea by providing a convenient way of flagging articles which you wish to have as one book.
"Can I, without asking anyone, take a complete copy of Wikipedia to put on a DVD for those without internet access?"
As stated by GregG above:"There are mirrors of Wikipedia, print versions, and Wikipedia content is incorporated into for-profit sites like Facebook and not-for-profit organizational and educational pages. CC-BY-SA allows this, so long as the requirements are satisfied." i.e. acknowledge that the stuff comes from Wikipedia.
So I think I have shown that Wikipedia can answer the last three questions with an unqualified yes, and I have shown that complying with CC-BY-SA is hardly a burden (add one line).
Your mention of self-defence illustrates that Conservapedia can not answer with an unqualified yes to the last three questions.
Perhaps you can provide explicit answers to the first three questions, since I don't think that I am competent to unravel the implications of Conservapedia:copyright. RolandPlankton 15:41, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

A quick note about grabbing old revisions of wiki pages

You wrote in this edit the following:

"On a wiki it is very cumbersome and nearly impossible to separate contributions prior to a certain date from those after, for most entries."

For future reference, you might be interested in knowing that both Conservapedia and Wikipedia display the last modified date at the bottom of articles. For example, pulling up Conservapedia's page on Arbitration and scrolling to the bottom gives this footer text:

"This page was last modified on January 5, 2012, at 11:12.
"This page has been accessed 1,429 times."

Likewise, pulling up Wikipedia's page on arbitration gives the following footer:

"This page was last modified on April 8, 2012 at 18:59."

Thus, given a copy of a Wikipedia article, it is actually very straightforward to see when the last revision date of an article is. However, I do suspect that not many people know about this because web users tend not to scroll to the bottom of pages. Also, if you click on the History tab on Conservapedia or Wikipedia, you can grab nearly every old revision and get a permanent link to that revision. For example, here is the last edit to Wikipedia's article on arbitration before June 15, 2009. The same for Conservapedia. GregG 18:07, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Greg, what you say is true, but the basic point remains: why does Wikipedia place burdens on the reuse of its content, such as requiring compliance with a 3100+ word license? I'm not going to spend much time on this, because I feel Wikipedia content is often not worth reusing, but the basic contradiction in its stated commitment to free information and its burdens on reuse cry out for explanation.--Andy Schlafly 19:42, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
Schlafly, I don't know why you persist in saying that it is a burden to comply with Wikipedia's copying policy. A full and detailed explanation was posted in the previous section above. As I illustrated in that section, compliance requires a single line "Copied/adapted from Wikipedia (article name)"; this hardly counts as a burden. As was also pointed out above, the reason for this policy is to use copyright laws in such a way as to ensure that freely available content remains free. By the way, I'm still awaiting your reply to the questions I posed re Conservapedia copyright in the previous section. RolandPlankton 11:54, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

Some comments about Wikipedia copyright

I left some comments at Talk:Wikipedia copyright that you might be interested in addressing. GregG 21:04, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

I notice that I can't currently edit Wikipedia copyright. I feel that some of the comments I made above, especially the summary of the CC-BY-SA license, could usefully be added to that article. RolandPlankton 13:19, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

I'm setting up a draft proposal of a revised version of the article at User:GregG/Wikipedia copyright for discussion of how to rewrite the article. I can't speak for Mr. Schlafly, who protected the article, but I would surmise that the article was protected to ensure that a stable version is visible to users while the content differences are ironed out. GregG 14:12, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

Final comments

Mr. Schlafly, Thank you again for providing my peers and I with information about Conservapedia. We chose to analyze a wiki with a more widespread and significant Internet presence for our final project, but I appreciate all of the information you gave me. If you have any final comments about your foray into the world of wikis, you are welcome to provide it and the writing team may try to work it into our final product. Thank you. LoyolaCOMM206Ted 09:58, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

Hi Mr. Schlafly. I work with Ted in COMM 206 as well, and I wanted to post my thank you as well. We are part of the same sub-unit for the final class project, so any comments can be directed to any of us. (Our class begins in a few minutes, 9:20 CST, which is why we are both posting this to you now. There is no rush in addressing comments, however). Thank you! LoyolaCOMM206Sarah 10:01, 23 April 2012 (EDT)
Let me guess ... I predict that the wiki your college group chose is more liberal, more pro-abortion, more politically correct, and more a part of the hearsay society than Conservapedia. Is Conservapedia proven right, again?--Andy Schlafly 11:57, 23 April 2012 (EDT)
I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you, Mr. Schlafly. Our group could not find a wiki with enough visitors or users to justify its inclusion, so we decided to profile an internal wiki that our Jesuits use, which was set up two years ago by a graduate student here at Loyola. Unfortunately, the more technical-minded members of our group identified system and technical issues with Conservapedia that made us choose a different wiki. I assume I can use your comments as your response to our project, correct? Thank you. LoyolaCOMM206Ted 13:21, 23 April 2012 (EDT)
An "internal wiki" has "a more widespread and significant Internet presence" than Conservapedia??? I don't think so. If this is not confidential information, how many million page views and hundreds of thousands of edits does your college's internet wiki have?--Andy Schlafly 14:08, 23 April 2012 (EDT)