User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cipe (Talk | contribs) at 07:22, 11 July 2012. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Archive Index

Broken HTML in MediaWiki text for permanent links

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

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

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

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


Category:Speedy deletion candidates

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

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

Gary Johnson

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

An Appeal for the Resurrection of the Conservative Bible Project

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


Supreme Court cases

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

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


Can't undo vandalism

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

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

Aethelwine ( a question for Ed Poor)

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

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

Editing talk page archives

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

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

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

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

Two Requests

Hi,

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

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

Sincerely,

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

User Name Change

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

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

Your wikilink on MPR is broken

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

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

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

Main page table of contents

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

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

I know you like editing over talkpages but...

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

Essay: Gallery of obese atheists

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Therefore, I request that

Additionally, I would like to have investigated

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

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

Kudos to CPalmer's Gallery of obese atheists! Olé! Olé! Olé!

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

Oh, and User:Conservative? I personally would have sent the email to User:CPalmer, since he was the one who created the page. But hey, go right ahead and compliment EdPoor for it anyway. SharonW 17:44, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

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

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

(photo obtained from Flickr, see: license agreement)
Thank you for proving my point for me, User:Conservative. There is nothing but ill-intent with regards to your writings about obese people. Don't try to pretend it has anything to do with atheism - it doesn't. I am neither an atheist or a "sympathizer", and I find these articles and comments replusive and bullying. --SharonW 17:26, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Cave in to atheists and to their liberal atheist sympathizers I'm neither an atheist nor an liberal atheist sympathizer. But for me GregG's points ring true. AugustO 18:42, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
I see my eye did not go down far enough the list of edits to see that CPalmer created it. My apologies to CPalmer. Conservative 19:35, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

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

Andy, as you are aware when people with liberal ideas badly lose debate exchanges with User: Conservative, a complaint is sure to follow.

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

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

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

Can we check what was said in these 'debates' that you won? Or have you oversighted and deleted them as you did with SharonW's 'debate' with you? Davidspencer 15:53, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
David, we all know that if there is one thing that Roman Catholics of the liberal persuasion cannot countenance. It's Protestant Bible believers showing them that the Apostle Peter believed in global flood and castigated those who do not. It drives them crazy. They go into User: Conservative Obsessive Compulsive Disorder overdrive and create enormous tome like formal complaints. I was afraid this would happen. Soon a whole new wiki may be launched. Conservative 18:44, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Perhaps User:Aschlafly is aware of an occasion "when people with liberal ideas badly lose debate exchanges with User: Conservative". Frankly, I havn't seen such a thing yet - though I have only followed his debates here on Conservapedia, where it is hard to find people with liberal ideas. But perhaps User:Conservative could link to a debate where he thinks that his opponents (liberals or not) have lost? Thanks. AugustO 18:40, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
All of them and it's not due to my debating prowess, but merely due to the ease of defeating specious liberal "arguments". It's child's play really and quite an embarrassment to liberalism. Once liberals run out of federal government money in the United States which is going to happen in the next 5 years or so, American conservatives will naturally prevail quite easily over liberals. Conservative 18:52, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
I just read Talk:Olympics_2012#Math.27d_--_Gay_marriage: that one you have definitely lost. AugustO 06:40, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

Andy, get ready for a large tome like rant of liberal wordiness!

True to liberal form, GregG employs liberal wordiness and has created an enormous tome like rant against User: Conservative. I didn't read it as it no doubt has a very low word to substance ratio. No doubt you will not read it either!

While at Wikipedia long emotional rants with links to a myriad of diffs may be fashionable, conservatives are far less ruled by emotion. :) Conservative 18:21, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

AugustO 18:36, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Liberals have a hard time understanding the concept of employing general principles while at the same time understanding the concept of strategic and tactical flexibility. There is a reason I created the article with the precise length I chose. :) Unfortunately for liberals, they will never know the reason! :) Conservative 19:05, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
One reason I could think of is to provide us with a feeling of irony when you of all people complain about wordiness... AugustO 19:08, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Perhaps if atheists were not so into denialism, I would not have put together such a large collection of evidence on the matter to prove my point! From demographic data which contrast Western atheists (who largely follow Darwinism) with world Christendom to studies to an ever growing collection of prominent obese atheists. Of course, one does not have to look very hard to find prominent obese atheists. You really can't miss them once you start looking for them.  :) Conservative 19:18, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Well, Atheism and obesity reads like an emotional rants with links to a myriad of web-sites. AugustO 19:23, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Not everyone who disagrees with your articles is liberal, or an atheist, or gay. Some of us just think your articles on obesity and (fill in the blank) are a bunch of hooey. SharonW 20:07, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Sharon - I'd like be able to say that I think those articles exhibit a distinct lack of machismo, but I'd probably be banned (again) for that very thing if I did WilcoxD 19:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, why didn't you read it if it had a low word to substance ratio? That would mean that it was very efficient in terms of how many words he used compared to substance. Or do you mean "high"? Gregkochuconn 16:09, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Response?

So do you plan on responding to User:GregG's complaints about User:Conservative or are you just going to pretend it's not there and let it drift away to the archives? As the owner of this site your input is expected. There is obviously a situation here, why aren't you addressing it? Please try to show User:GregG some respect and respond to him on the matter.

Sincerely, --KMikeT 15:33, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

That are many words there to review and ponder - Rome wasn't build in a day. Both editors in their dispute are entitled to full respect.--Andy Schlafly 15:41, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
I feel the only proper response is to ban User:GregG. He is obviously a liberal parodist who seeks to disrupt this site and to damage the reputation of one of its oldest and most respected contributors. --RonC 23:02, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
I appreciate your taking time out of your busy schedule to consider my concerns, and I wish to thank you for that, regardless of what you decide to do. GregG 11:44, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won

Andy, although it is true that Communist countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[5], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[6]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate

In the journal article Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[7][8] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness. Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[9] See also: Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: Atheism and health and Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism and Atheism and obesity

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Lastly, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not. Conservative 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Spam

Could you delete user_talk:sonyaOz and user_talk:CurtPbf please?brenden 00:32, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

's-Hertogenbosch, Arnhem, Delft, South Holland and North Brabant

  • User:Ed Poor, you wrote: If you can't contact an administrator by email or edit their user talk page, you can always post here or on Andy's talk page.

A week ago, User:Ed Poor proposed to merge 's-Hertogenbosch, Arnhem, Delft, South Holland and North Brabant with the article on the Netherlands. I stated my objections on the respective talk-pages, User:Ed Poor hasn't given a reason for such a merge. So seven days after the merge-templates were introduced, I'll delete them.

AugustO 04:56, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

I didn't think your objections made much sense. In particular, I didn't see the advantage of having several one-sentence or three-sentence "articles". So I merged all the provinces into the Netherlands. (Don't assume silence means agreement.) --Ed Poor Talk 18:25, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

I'm a little bit bewildered:

  • Don't assume silence means agreement Indeed. But I even expressively vocalized my disagreement with the merges: That does not mean agreement with a merge!
  • Your only argument for merging the articles is that you don't see the advantage of having several one-sentence or three-sentence "articles" I always thought that small articles were meant to be the seeds, and that they are meant to become larger due to collaboration. In fact, I think that you are one of those who planted many of such (very short) seeds here at Conservapedia.
  • The article on North Brabant had a length of more than 400 bytes. Roughly 9,000 articles (not including redirects) of Conservapedia's ca. 40,000 articles are shorter. So, why start there - especially as you know that some of us editors don't think these articles should be merged?

I asked you - politely - not to merge the articles. I do so again. AugustO 18:49, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

Hey, don't know if this is the correct place to say this, but I always thought that the short articles were there in the hope that someone would expand them. So if it's a subject that could have a good article about it then it would save time for the next person that knows something about the subject if there was still an article about the subject that they could add to instead of having to start from scratch.Cmurphynz 19:28, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
They are just as easy to expand where they are now, and much easier to find. In general, obscure topics are best collected into a section of a better-known article.
If it actually happens that any of these Dutch places gets too big to be contained in the Netherlands article, I'll be happy to use the For a more detailed treatment, see [[{{{1}}}]].
template. Meanwhile, less arguing and more writing, please. --Ed Poor Talk 19:42, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

User:Guitarsniper

User:Guitarsniper's name is obviously in violation of our username policy. However, he appears to be making productive edits, so I don't think we should block him. Should we make him change his username, or just let him be since he's a good editor? Gregkochuconn 12:15, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

I was going to ask the same thing about you. --Ed Poor Talk 19:43, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
@Greg K. Mr. Schlafly said that enforcement of the username policy is discretionary. I do understand, though, that requiring an established user to create a new username may be a bit demeaning.
@Ed With all due respect, what makes you think that "Gregkochuconn", a name that appears to be based on someone's real name of Greg Koch and the University of Connecticut, is "obviously in violation of our username policy," which says that "user names based on your real name or initials are preferred" [10] (emphasis added)?
GregG 20:49, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

Images for articles

Hi Andy (I hope you don't mind the familiarity - I'm Jim by the way) I'd like to add some images to the articles I'm working on. Is there an image bank I can choose from or could you allow me to upload some pictures? EJamesW 16:14, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

Standard Model

Uh oh...Is the Standard Model (and quantum field theory in general) now a liberal conspiracy because it "relies heavily on materialism"? (You added that to the article right?) AndyFrankinson 12:30, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

Edit request

Hello

Could you edit this page MediaWiki:Revision-info.

Currently it looks like this:

This is an <a href="/Help:Page_history" title="Help:Page history">old revision</a> of this page, as edited by $2 at $1. It may differ significantly from <a href="/User talk:Aschlafly" title="User talk:Aschlafly">the current revision</a>.

code:

<div id="viewingold-warning" style="background: #FFBDBD; border: 1px solid #BB7979; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; margin: 2em 0 .5em; padding: .5em 1em; vertical-align: middle; clear: both;">This is an <a href="/Help:Page_history" title="Help:Page history">old revision</a> of this page, as edited by <span id="mw-revision-name">$2</span> at <span id="mw-revision-date">$1</span>. It may differ significantly from <a href="/{{FULLPAGENAME}}" title="{{FULLPAGENAME}}">the current revision</a>.</div> <div id="viewingold-plain" style="display:none;">Revision as of $1 by $2</div>


This sucks. Can you replace that with:

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by $2 at $1. It may differ significantly from current revision.

fixed code:

<div id="viewingold-warning" style="background: #FFBDBD; border: 1px solid #BB7979; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; margin: 2em 0 .5em; padding: .5em 1em; vertical-align: middle; clear: both;">This is an [[Help:Page_history|old revision]] of this page, as edited by <span id="mw-revision-name">$2</span> at <span id="mw-revision-date">$1</span>. It may differ significantly from <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} current revision]</span>.</div> <div id="viewingold-plain" style="display:none;">Revision as of $1 by $2</div>

i.e. please copy & paste the fixed code to MediaWiki:Revision-info. Hopefully this will fix it, although I can't say for sure. Best regards, Cipe 08:22, 11 July 2012 (EDT)