User talk:Aschlafly/Archive7

From Conservapedia
< User talk:Aschlafly
This is the current revision of User talk:Aschlafly/Archive7 as edited by TK (Talk | contribs) at 19:17, 13 July 2007. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm for Jesse Helms

Hi Aschlafly. just wanted to say Hi. Been busy.. However I just had a chance to stub out the beginning of an article on Jesse Helms. Part of my continuing efforts to give fair coverage to conservatives who have been mistreated by the media. I'm sure I'll need help from your watchful eye...The self-appointed liberal watchdogs on here are probably not big fans of "Senator No"  :-) Richard 01:11, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Ah, a good entry on Jesse Helms would be terrific! When it's in good shape let's feature it on the front page. I've been working on improving a number of other entries all evening. Thanks.--Aschlafly 01:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Don't worry any dissent or criticism and the article will be locked and the editors involved blocked. Tmtoulouse 01:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Tmtoulouse, your account has not been blocked but this is a warning that it will be blocked if you post another remark like that on my User talk page.--Aschlafly 01:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Its inevitable. Tmtoulouse 01:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Only Talk Page

TK made a suggestion awhile back about making a sysops-only talk page. I think that we should definitely do that, because of the recent threats from O'ReillyFan, increased vandalism, edit wars, a lack of communication, and the fragmented nature of the talk page. MountainDew 03:54, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be easy to make a protected User_talk:SYSOP page and set it so only sysops could edit it, but it would remain visible to the rest of the community, something that could pose a problem. Is there a way to make a page just visible to sysops? I don't know enough about mediawiki to be of anymore help than what I've just suggested. ColinRtalk 03:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Cool! Someone reads. I emailed Andrew about it, when there wasn't a answer, never got a response. :-( --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 03:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I've made SYSOP and SYSOP and protected both. It could serve as an interim sysop talk page. ColinRtalk 04:02, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Bless you, Colin!...wait, bless you, but it is visible by anyone, so NG. We will need Andy or the Webmaster. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 04:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, that's the only bad thing about it, but that's why it's the interim page. I'm going to look on MediaWiki to see about making it invisible to non-sysops. Nevertheless, for now, it's a central location for sysops to talk, instead of posting all over the place on everyone's talk pages. ColinRtalk 04:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Problem being, BORF will be reading too.  ;-) --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 04:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
    • This is why we need an invisible one. Conservapedia Webmaster may know how to do it. MountainDew 04:15, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Eureka! I've been looking on the MediaWiki page and I've found what we're looking for: Here's the patch's website and here's the MetaWiki entry on it. ColinRtalk 06:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Leaving the User:SYSOP as a protected user page might not be a bad idea, that way no one can use the username, and once the invisible page script is added, we'll have an easy place for sysops to talk. ColinRtalk 06:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Hooray! If for no other reason than to be able to speculate on someones intent (which is done here all the time, even has happened to me!) without publicly soiling their name, without clear proof, it would be a good idea. Hopefully Andy won't be too busy this weekend, and will see this.... --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 07:15, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
We'll make this SYSOP-only talk page our next top priority, now that the math functionality is fixed and a new logo has been selected by the students. By the way, the students also eliminated the American preference on the spellings from the rules. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Bonzer! Philip J. Rayment 11:29, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • A Wiki is just not the easy way to do this, as the whole point of a Wiki is to make everything open and visible. I don't say it can be done, but I think it would be much easier to set up a mailing list... perhaps the webmaster can set one up... or there's always the option of a Yahoo Groups mailing list which is free, easy to organize, and can be set up so that only the moderator can add members and only members can view the message archives. Dpbsmith 10:27, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Email is an approach to this. I have many, though my no means all, of the Sysops' email addresses. That approach is not entirely satisfactory, as I'm not sure all the Sysops would like their email address shared with all the other Sysops. I could send messages using "bcc", but then the replies would come only to me. A Sysop read-only page would be ideal.--Aschlafly 10:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks for the quick action and response, Andy! I think if people are reminded to fill in their email address in the preferences (it completely protects their privacy, sending messages via this wiki) that would be a help too. --~ TerryK MyTalk 11:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Hey! What is the logo they selected?? Never mind! Someone changed it, resized it just after I asked. Nice looking! --~ TerryK MyTalk 11:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Again: Ed Poor has already set up a real-time private (secret, invisible) IRC Channel on the channel name is #conservapedia-sysop and can ONLY be accessed to those with the correct key. I really don't know why yunz haven't availed yourselves to this medium (IRC), it's real-time, as private and as secret as you want it, it's fairly easy to use. --Crackertalk 14:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Sounds great, I just don't understand it yet! How do we communicate the secret key?--Aschlafly 14:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Either email or go to the regular #conservapedia page and use private messages to relay the key. The key can also be reset, but then you'd have to get it to all pertinent people all over again. Hojimachong I believe has the key, (as does Ed Poor) but neither of them are currently on IRC that I can see. I do not have the key as I am not a sysop and do not wish to be.

The Sysop only talk page is possible, see my Eureka post above, and would have some advantages. I would rather not use a mailing list, as I that would just result in a flooding of my inbox, and it would be tough to see everyone's comments on a subject together. I'm not familiar with IRC, but is it not like an instant messenger? If so, having the ability to post a comment right under the relevant comment would be a great feature that a sysop only talk page would have. ColinRtalk 14:31, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I haven't been able to get IRC to work for myself. If the patch that Colin found would allow us to get a private page on here, that would be ideal. MountainDew 14:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I, myself run mIRC (available nearly everywhere) it's good shareware with LOADS of help files. It's stand alone, meaning it's not http dependent but runs on a different port...this is technobabble from here so I'll leave it alone. Crackertalk 14:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
EDIT Here's the mIRC homepage
  • The fact that I have asked about this IRC several times, and have yet to be given the key by either Hojimachong, or Ed, who's post here I first learned it was available, makes a good case for installing the patch, and using the Admin only talk page. --~ TerryK MyTalk 16:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
So the fact this page was vandalized [1][2] twice after being protected would mean it was vandalized by a Sysop. Likewise, this anonymous user account [3], User:Torry would have to be a Sysop. This sort of activity takes valuable time away from actually researching and writing articles, and should be addressed before Conservapedia becomes too much like Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, in the absence of rebutting valid information, concerted harassment of this nature takes place. RobS 17:54, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Rob, those edits weren't made when the page was protected. For some reason, it was protected only against moves, not edits. Tsumetai 17:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for that clarification. I'm still learning the ropes (and that counterintelligence mind of mine never ceases to see shadows lurking...) RobS 18:08, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I don't know what stress you are under lately, Rob, but please take some time to rest, and gather yourself, before running here to attack and make weird speculations, OK? Andrew isn't our "Daddy" and he shouldn't be expected to solve all problems, and that is exactly what this page has become. Your concerns could have as easily been answered by emailing me, which you managed to do just fine last night, when you blocked yourself. We are supposed to work together, for the betterment of the site, not run around like little kings, unilaterally making decisions, and reversing each other. Unfounded accusations and/or speculation, once again, aired publicly, besmirch reputations, is unnecessary, and isn't at all the Christian way. Fortunately for us, Andrew has made the creation of a Sysop-only page a priority. This is yet another example of the need for it. --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
duh, huh? RobS 21:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Is the image server down?

It appears that none of the images are currently working except for the logo. Is the image server down? Does anybody know when it will be back?--Rexislexis 12:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll check and see. It has been working all along, until today. Thanks for letting us know.--Aschlafly 13:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

"Starving Time" passage in Lecture 1 STILL makes no sense.

Currently, it reads: "From 1607-1611, the Jamestown settlement lived under socialism, whereby the group shared its food with everyone no matter how much or little he worked. This economic system was a complete failure as no one had any incentive to do any work. John Smith arrived from England and he installed a conservative economic system: “don’t work, don’t eat!” Magically, by 1614 there was suddenly plenty to eat."

EVERY source I've examined uses the "Starving Time" to refer to the hard times of 1609-10 or 11. What earlier "starving time" do you have in mind, and what source refers to it as "The Starving Time?" And since Smith left for good in 1609, exactly how did he manage to change the Virginia settlement from a socialist to a free market economic system AFTER 1611 so that "magically, by 1614 there was suddenly enough to eat." --PF Fox 12:54, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

New vandal

Can someone please block Hitler = sensitive man. Check out his comment on the Hitler talk page. Thanks.Airdish 15:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

We've blocked this vandal, like, 15 times. MountainDew 15:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

They've all been blocked. All like, 18 of his accounts. He was doing it all from the same IP; unchecking the box "block anon. users only" completely finished him off. --Hojimachongtalk 15:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Cheers, and cheers for reverting my talk page after he got to that too. Airdish 15:34, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Update on pending items

First, thanks much to Hoji for his blocking insight above, and thanks to MountainDew for being vigilant.

Here's an update on pending items and questions:

1. Images work now, thanks to our webmaster.
2. The new icon was approved by the students for now.
3. The students removed American English from our rules.
4. The students voted to make Ed Poor a Sysop, which has been done.
5. The students are considering the long-running dispute over the Evolution page.
6. Handing the tough issues off to the students enabled me to add a few entries and make some edits.

My hope is that this site will be more educational than polemic, though I don't mind heated discussions and ongoing conflict. But shifting gears to the educational side for a moment, I thank PF Fox for his question about "starving time." I don't use that term. Jamestown did struggle after its initial year under an economic system of community property, and tough guy John Smith imposed a capitalistic system of "don't work, don't eat." I think historians all concede that. Perhaps it took a few years to work; perhaps he imposed a system and then left after it got going. I don't see any contradiction in the fact that the full benefits were not realized until a few years later, after he left. After all, the full benefits of the U.S. Constitution weren't realized until later, and until after key players had died. We still enjoy benefits from Washington's tenure, over 200 years after he died. No contradiction there.--Aschlafly 15:29, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

User names

Could you somehow limit the length of new user names to something around 20-25 characters.

It's just that it would stop vandals signing up with user names such as:

"They've all been blocked. All like, 18 of his accounts. He was doing it all from the same IP; unchecking the box "block anon. users only" completely finished him off. --Hojimachongtalk 15:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)". niandra 15:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Rec blocking new user registration for a day

You've blocked new user registration before, and I think you need to do it now. Your sysops look overwhelmed with blocking all these new hacker user names! I'd recommend doing a temporary block of a day or so, just to let the "casual hackers" drift away. -AmesG 15:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

What we need is a bot. Tsumetai 15:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Don't want to speak too soon, but... I just blocked the AOL proxy IP that this user was editing from. I want to see if this stopped the vandal. Hold tight and pray it worked! --Hojimachongtalk 15:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
If it doesn't, it's totally against my nature to suggest blocking, but I agree with Ames... and with Tsumetai but I don't know how Bots work. Let's hope Hoji's trick works. Myk 15:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
7 minutes of peace :) niandra 15:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I've alerted our webmaster. Maybe Hoji's block will work first.
Let's get the IP address and report this vandal to the prosecutors.--Aschlafly 15:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

If he's smart, though, he's spoofing his IP (read: using a fake). You won't get a real one, I bet :-/ -AmesG 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Seems to have slowed down, the IP block had some sort of effect. Sysops, if a vandal uses a similar username again, get the IP from Special:Checkuser, and then go to Special:Block user and block the IP itself. --Hojimachongtalk 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Special: block user "No such special page" . --~ TerryK MyTalk 16:54, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Just a quick note Andy, I find it heartening that so many people who do not agree with your ideology want to protect your right to disseminate information. It makes me proud to be an American and a human being.Palmd001 16:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Amen. I guess not everyone agreed when they supported the U.S. Constitution either, but they supported the framework within which to work things out.--Aschlafly 17:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

It's getting worse again, way too many have too much time on their hands today.Palmd001 17:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

More suggestions

For Photographs and Images

  • The need for the Upload Page to be altered to include a "page link" block and a "pic category" block
  • A common area to store, catalogue, and use pics (under flags, World War II, animals, ships, etc)
  • A page for licencing tags for copying and placing in each pic's summary block

For the Main Page

  • Links on how to write a good article; how to upload and include a good picture, etc.
  • Pics included in the featured category or quotations blocks
  • Current news stories and links

Karajou 16:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

All good suggestions. Will do. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Note on Blocking

Thanks to Hoji for pointing this out. When we block, we need to UNCHECK the box for "Block anonymous users only". Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The London Paper

Apparently there was a very hostile article about Conservapedia in Thelondonpaper - one of London's main local newspapers (ironically, owned by Fox - and yes the title is spelt that way) today. I've not seen it, and the text of the article isn't on their website, but expect a wave of vandalism from England today.Tracy C Copeland 17:15, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:17, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

This demonstrates the hilarity of Rupert Murdoch, actually - he also owns "The Sun," a very liberal London daily. It should be obvious from these, that he tailors his media very much to his constituency :-). He is a quintessential businessman, for better or worse.-AmesG 17:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I was misinformed - it was their sister paper, Metro which ran the article (which is why I couldn't find it on their website). It's at if you want to read it, but be aware it is very hostile.Tracy C Copeland 14:22, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Is it that hostile? It seems accurate. Creationism does get top marks in every page, regardless of reasoned objections (which are censored).-AmesG 14:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Reporting obscene vandals

I'm going to start reporting obscene vandals again. This IP address from Comcast Cable in Seattle is going to be reported: (I have the full address). I encourage other Sysops here to look up the IP addresses and report them also.--Aschlafly 17:17, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

You do not have the right to interfere with freedom of speech. LitcoKami 17:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
LitcoKami, your userpage is a joke. You do not worship Fred Phelps, and it is not conservative to hate America. MountainDew 17:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Wrong. This is a privately-owned website; you have no freedom of speech here. Tsumetai 17:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Can I suggest people read LitcoKami's user page before they take anything he says seriously?Tracy C Copeland 17:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
If he is going to pose and vandalize, he could at least be more subtle.Palmd001 17:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I banned him. He already posted racial vandalism in an article, anyway. MountainDew 17:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
You're assuming he's a parody. Phelps does have supporters, disgusting as it may seem; it's not that big a stretch to suppose some of them might come here to push their insanity. Tsumetai 17:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Could you ban this user until he removes the part "I encourage the bombing of abortion mills". Surely incitement to violence has no place here. Oh, you've banned him already. Can I remove his User page?Airdish 17:27, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Please do. MountainDew 17:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I've deleted his user page. Tsumetai 17:31, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Nomination

I would like to nominate Tmtoulouse for sysop. He's been really helpful in reversing vandalism in the last couple of days. MountainDew 17:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. He is especially good at catching the really subtle vandalism. I'd like to make him a SYSOP, as long as its alright with you. ~ SharonS Talk! 17:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Agree! -AmesG 17:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Sounds good to me. Tsumetai 17:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Ditto--Elamdri 18:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Great! I will run this past the student panel to make sure they approve before I promote him. ~ SharonS Talk! 18:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I support making him a sysop. ColinRtalk 18:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • He's done excellent work. --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree. Dpbsmith 20:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you all for your support. I appreciate the vote of confidence. Tmtoulouse 18:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

It got revoked with in the hour, I am sorry but this is the last straw I can not in good faith continue to work towards improving this site. I am done. The bias is just to thick, fundapedia. Tmtoulouse 20:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Yknow, I'm a little disappointed in you. No offense, but its not THAT hard to work within the bias of this site. I feel a little betrayed, because I nominated you based on your edits, and you used that vote of confidence I gave you to get to the intelligent design article. Now, I am in no way conservative or that much of an advocate of religion. However, I manage to behave on the site and respect the wishes of Andrew without causing a fuss.--Elamdri 07:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
You do know you're trying to argue with a guy who got a six-month ban, right? --Sid 3050 07:53, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
He can still access the page. I'm not so much arguing as much as I am voicing my disappointment.--Elamdri 07:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
He basically got de-sysop'd over a content dispute. Just like some people here get banned over content disputes. Is that right in your eyes? And right now, most of his oh-so-evil edit has been worked into the article again.
I'm disappointed, too. I'm disappointed that a very competent editor was totally dissed for one instance of his power use while a certain other sysop can do that all day long and even get a pat on the back for it. "Do as I say, not as I do." seems to be the first "commandment" for new admins. --Sid 3050 08:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I appreciate Elamdri's comments very much. Thank you, Elamdri! Tmtoulouse was not blocked, even though he continued to enter abusive comments on this page later last night. Nor was he de-sysop'd over a mere content or ideological dispute. I did not de-sysop him, but I felt that he imported Wikipedia-type bias and inaccuracies into a locked and popular page. This was not why he was made sysop, and he gave no warning of this. For example, TmToulouse immediately inserted the statement a "journal later withdrew the article citing improper reviewing practices." [4] This is doubly false and even defamatory towards the journal's editor, but is typical for Wikipedia entries. I think the term "withdrew" is even the same false term used by Wikipedia for its entry. Tmtoulouse then immediately made other objectionable edits to the same entry. I think we can all agree that we do not need another Wikipedia in this world!--Aschlafly 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It certainly looks like he has been banned: His block log
And you might want to check the recent diffs of the ID article.
I also don't see from your explanation of how he was NOT de-sysop'd because of the content dispute. You claim he was not, but then you go on and describe the content dispute. The only difference is that you call it something else. Just answer me this: Was he de-sysop'd because of his edits in the ID article or not? If yes, then that's what I call a content dispute. --Sid 3050 09:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
With respect, Andy, the statement about the Meyer paper was first inserted by Archangel (talk contribs count) over a week ago, and remained there until Conservative changed the statement to claim more than one peer-reviewed pro-ID publication. It was in contesting the latter claim that the former was restored; I doubt it was an intentional attempt to bias the article. Tsumetai 09:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I now see that another sysop, a good and very experienced one who has no connection with me, blocked TmToulouse well after I went to sleep. I stand completely behind that sysop's decision, and whatever further he may decide. TmToulouse's conduct after he was de-sysoped (again, by someone else) was unacceptable.
His edits were unacceptable too, bordering on defamation (of the journal editor). Tsumetai says TmToulouse was simply reverting removed edits, but that is no justification. We don't defame people here the way that Wikipedia does.
Sid, you've taken out factual material from the Wikipedia entry, and I've had to revert your edits. That is the second time, and this is unacceptable also.
Unfortunately, I can't be online all day today. Feel free to continue to discuss with all our superb Sysops. Thanks.--Aschlafly 11:22, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Andy, I took out phrases like "Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler afterwards on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him" and "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source". I also removed stuff that showed sources that did not back your claim. The only guy who mentioned that being "the best thing" doesn't seem to be an admin, and he's the only one who actually mentions that phrase. And the "slander factory" bit does not appear ONCE in the source you cite, so it's just a random gossip with a source that goes all "Oh noes! Wikipedia is teh bad!". Not even to mention the bits around it that are unencyclopedic, not properly sourced, or misrepresented. But fine, whatever. I left an apology on the Talk page. You won, I won't touch the article anymore. Christ. --Sid 3050 11:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Sid, you make some valid points, but there were repeated wholesale deletions of entire paragraphs from our entry Wikipedia. For example, the paragraph describing how Wikipedia editors gradually downplayed the injustice to Seigenthaler was very informative, factual, and illustrative of a fundamental problem with Wikipedia. The trashing of Seigenthaler simply for defending himself is also pervasive on Wikipedia, and that paragraph was repeatedly deleted here in its entirety. Admittedly the opening phrase "Were Wikipedia editors apologetic?" is not encyclopedic in style, and I'll change that now.--Aschlafly 19:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I've seen 'trashing' there, before. You got to watch your step, if a clique comes gunning for you there. If Jimbo hadn't stepped in, Seigenthaler would have been on his own. Even I was afraid to get involved, when I first saw the erroneous edit; I simply didn't dare revert it.
Anyway, we all expect better from Conservapedia, and quite a few refugees from WP have come over here to help you get started. Drop a note on my talk page if there's anything I can do more (or less!) of, around here. --Ed Poor 19:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Who is going to be big enough to step up and see all this for what it is? Lack of communication and knowledge. I think everyone involved had a bad night, lots of frustrations by many Sysops, and passion for doing the best job, came to a boiling point. Nothing unusual there. I've rarely used, certainly never edited Wikipedia, but I am wondering if I had edited ID, a page with no warnings not to do so, would I have become suspect? Andy, it isn't like Sysops are handed any useful information when appointed, other than to block often and quick. I hope I have lived up to your expectations on the occasions I have found trouble. I know you might well get ticked off at me, but dang! You never respond, never really voice your expectations in any detail whatsoever. Several times I have very diplomatically raised this issue, and you always ignore. I urge you to pray on this, everyone should, and move on, committed to trying to improve how we work, and rededicated to making Conservapedia the best possible online resource it can be.--~ TerryK MyTalk 10:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Re: email I sent to you

I realize you generally don't notices here saying I sent you a email to your AOL account. However, I think I have some rather significant good news for Conservapedia that I sent you. Conservative 19:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative


I have all ready been revoked. They are not ideological edits, they are CONSENSUS EDITS that multiple sysops and editors agreed to. Do not bother reinstating my sysops privileges. There is no hope for you, or your fascists ways. Have you noticed how once everyone got tired of mocking you site your page views plummeted? Until you pull the stick out of your collective you-know-what you will ONLY receive traffic from scoffers and hated filled people. I am done. Enjoy your little circle of the internet. I am done contributing, I am done reverting vandalism. I am done. This site is inundated, and I am completely inundated with people that are turning this place into even more of a laughing stalk then it was originally. Half the edits here are sarcastic and full of subtle errors, and you are pushing away the few people that are able to figure it out. Good luck, you are going to need it! Tmtoulouse 19:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't revoke your Sysop privileges. But I did notice that within 10 minutes of your receiving your Sysop privileges you unlocked a protected page and made ideological, Wikipedia-like edits. That was a mere ten minutes. Your edits concerned an incident that I am familiar with and your portrayal of what happened had the Wikipedia slant to it.
I expressed my concerns on your talk page, while the person who extended your privileges independently took them back.
This is Conservapedia. Wikipedia already presents your views on this topic and Lord knows we do not need two Wikipedias. I will now try to incorporate facts related to your edits without the Wikipedia bias.
Your Parthian shot does not inspire confidence. But we wish you the best.--Aschlafly 20:36, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I am sorry to see you go. :-( I saw Andrew post a warning, didn't see his revocation. What troubles me is, who is this group of Sysops who form this "consensus" you speak of? I know I have never been consulted about the problematic pages concerning Creation and Intelligent Design. I just looked at the Intelligent Design page, and really, the first thing I noticed was the horrible grammatical mistakes. I couldn't read more. This is yet another bad end because of the on-going problem with communication here. If you acted because some other Sysop's agreed it should have been changed, (and I didn't even read all versions on those pages) and you made sure it was a majority of them, Andrew would not have room to complain about you acting. Did you poll all 31 Sysops before acting? I would hope Andrew would recognize, when he cools down, that many of us haven't received any notice from him, or anyone, about certain pages being off-limits. I find it shocking, and deem it totally unacceptable, that such a site can have this magnitude of communication failure. I hope you and Andrew can somehow talk to each other, and resolve this. If not, it doesn't speak well for either of you... --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I have no interest in further communication with Schlafly, or this site. My only interest is to watch the utter collapse of this idiocy as the internal structure buckles under from its own oppressive fascism, and the humorous mocking that BORF and his friends are creating of half your articles. Tmtoulouse 20:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Sysops don't form a consensus of what is or is not acceptable material. If you look at any of the contentious Evolution/Creation articles there are a group of sysops who regularly protest against the way User:Conservative uses his sysop privelleges. People that choose to participate in a given discussion are the ones that have their voices heard... I can't see a valid reason for polling each of the sysops to find their views on the subject. Myk 20:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Does anyone care that your "favorite" Sysop has banned me three times just for disagreeing with him, bans which have all been lifted or shortened within the hour? Doesn't that demonstrate a consensus against Conservative's general temper? And doesn't that tell you something about who SHOULD have sysop privileges revoked?-AmesG 20:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and here's the consensus: the people have spoken.-AmesG 20:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • AmesG, I believe I said "Consensus of Sysop's". I see now, Tmtoulouse actually, more accurately, said "Multiple Sysop's". In looking at your link, I readily saw maybe three Sysop's saying the page should be opened. I'm embarrassed to say I haven't memorized the entire list of my brethren, likewise I am almost completely ignorant of what Andrew termed "Wikipedia-like edits". I bow to his more complete knowledge of what the heck it meant. I'm not sure I even want to know. If someone had contacted me about the page in question, after reading the Talk page, you can be sure I would have emailed the only "authority" I know of here, Andrew, before making any substantial changes there. Someone in 6th Grade could readily see the whole deal is problematic as a mine field. And, to be completely candid, that would mean I would have never made a change there, because I have never had the courtesy of a reply to any of the several emails and instant messages I have sent to Andrew. So, unless I am being singled out, which I don't believe, because Andrew strikes me as a gentleman, and therefore he wouldn't just ignore someone he promoted to Sysop, that means that Tmtoulouse, and everyone else is also ignored. Absent some consent by Authority, which I have surmised is a "Bureaucrat", I think it was unwise to just forge ahead on such a heated issue. With the 100,000 or so entries here, or needed, I do think it not a logical thing to become so fixated on the single issue of Creation. There are enough pages needing to be added, expanded, and cited to keep a hundred people, working full time, busy. To get so worked up about one issue, that has been debated by the greatest minds on the planet for hundreds of years, is stupid, IMHO. As for Conservative, yes, I think he rides with a very heavy hand. But I have been so accused as well, in the past. Not knowing his age, or how long he has used the Net, I have just assumed that peer interaction in such venues as this, is new to him. There is a learning curve for all of us, no matter where we go. ;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Excusing Conservative's conduct because of the "learning curve" of peer interactions with authority is (inflammatorily, granted) analogous to excusing a 10-year-old who shoots an old woman because he "didn't know better."-AmesG 21:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, AmesG, without knowing your age, or position in life, that is hard to judge. I do know I was 39 before I ever saw or used a Net discussion board. I was a campaign manager, media consultant, running (at that time) two companies, employing well over 100 people. Admittedly I was a pasha, "Type A" bull running wild. I was used to people listening to me when I spoke, and expected the deference I thought I was "due". LOL! So, you see, depending on where one is in life, there are many ways to screw up Net protocol, things guys half my age accept and understand, because they grew up using the Net. Some people are also far more verbal, and able to communicate with the written word, mindful of the impression we might make. Others, equally intelligent, do lack the verbal skills I at least, often take for granted. I am not excusing anyone's shortcomings here, just offering a civil and polite explanation as to how sometimes people can be wrongly perceived, without even knowing it, or understanding what they are doing to make people mad. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:38, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I think Conservative is learning-resistant (just like Andy is resistant against considering that the press in several countries may have a point in voicing criticism about the site). Even somebody who never used the net before would go "Hmmmm..." at the various people who practically BEGGED him to stop during the past few WEEKS. Or at the numerous calls for him being de-sysop'd because of his various actions (locking articles and turning them into his personal playgrounds, banning or threatening to ban over content disputes, ignoring most serious Talk page concerns). If somebody has no experience in dealing with people in such a format, he shouldn't be given power over people. It's that easy. Giving him power basically told him "No need to learn, you can just use your power to silence people who disagree with you (either by blocking or locking)." As long as he is a sysop and backed by Andy, this site will remain a sad joke. People will either leave or simply ignore articles that are owned by people like Conservative. Either way, things will not get better. On the contrary. --Sid 3050 21:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Wow. A subversive disinformation infilitrator caught red-handed.... RobS 21:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Disallowing moves among normal users

Mr. Schlafly, I would highly suggest that you speak with the webmaster regarding user priviliges; Specifically, normal users moving pages. I have never seen a non-Sysop move a page, except for vandalism. I therefore suggest that you disable page-moves among non-Sysops. This would mitigate most of the vandalism we recieve, since moves are much harder to clean up than normal vandalism. Creating a category or page for proposed page moves would, IMHO, be a much better alternative. --Hojimachongtalk 21:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Hoji - it'd stop most of the vandalism - but I have to say that I have used "Move" legitimately a couple of times. Like, moving "Romulus Augustus" (not his real name) to "Romulus Augustulus" (his real name), or similar errors. So, as much as I'd miss that power since I'm not, nor will ever be, a sysop, I think it's a good decision for the site.-AmesG 21:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

If you look at my edit history thing I move pages around pretty often. Sulgran 21:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

- :I've done a few moves, mainly to clear name-space, but yes, moves can be destructive. I gather, however, that move-privileges can be delayed; most vandals are new users. --Lohengrin 22:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I disagree with Hojimachong. I do quite a few moves, mostly cleanup/corrections. A very common one is correcting capitalization, e.g. moving John doe to John Doe. And the students make quite a few misspellings. Dpbsmith 22:08, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Hoji's suggestion is an excellent one. I'm looking to see if I can do easily that as a bureaucrat. Hoji, do you know exactly how this is done? Does it require coding or can it be done with the wiki interface?--Aschlafly 22:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • As the system is now, any page, one can use the check box, select Sysop in the page move column, and stop users from moving pages that might be problematic, or all of them. --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
So a proposal like this would stop a Willy on Wheels type vandal? RobS 22:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes Rob, it would stop page moves; the most annoying type of vandalism. Aschlafly, I think that only the webmaster can do this, because it is a feature with the software, not something that can be done directly with the interface. If anybody would know, it's the webmaster. --Hojimachongtalk 22:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • HELLO!! *WAVES HAND* Can't just the problem pages be protected from moving, as I explained above, but was ignored about? --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
The problem is, it's not just some "problem pages", like Jews or Ovens. Lots of the vandals (the ones that occur twice-thrice weekly) pick completely random pages, and move them to nonsensical titles. So yes, the move protection on the problem pages is a good temporary solution, but the big headaches come from the random move mass-moves. These people have programs to assist them (unauthorized Wiki-bots). --Hojimachongtalk 22:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks, for responding! My thought was it might be effective, as often and as many pages as Sysops visit every hour, to start the procedure, and hope the changes can be effectuated by the Webmaster ASAP. And it did seem to me, and my fuzzy thinking, from the above conversations, that apparently, many don't know about the check box, and the ability to lock any movement, as opposed to locking the whole thing. --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that new user registration is shut down again, you can slowly but surely lock all the pages, restrict moving, and eventually make sure that no one can harm this site because no one can do anything on this site. Shut this place down, lock it tight. The more you restrict it, the more oppresive and heaviy handed the approaches to dealing with problems the less and less positive contributions you can expect. Has anyone realized that about 30 percent of the edits to this site are "vandalism" and 30 percent are undoing the vandalism, over half your edits are about nothing but people mocking this site. Very little positive content growth is occuring. Alex rankings are slipping daily....keep going...irrelevancy indeed. 22:27, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I think there's truth in what you say; and I also think it's not random vandalism. It's coordintated, and targeted, just as occurs in Wikipedia, and just as I wrote extensively about at Wikipedia Review. And even the Wikimedia Foundation is presently going through a major shakeup with the resignations of its Executive Director and General Counsel this past week because the nature of these coordinated, profiling, and targeting programs is becoming known.
Wikipedia has a bait and switch program, supposedly "anyone can edit", then when lured in, profiled, targeted, and harassed which ultimately leads to Dispute Resolution, a person can then be publicly defamed if their real identity is known. I have documented several cases.
Following the path of Wikipedia as you suggest, a propaganda machine and mouthpiece to defame imaginary enemies is probably not the path the owners of this cite have chosen to take. RobS 22:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Moving for non-sysops has been disabled. CPWebmaster 22:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

So now I cannot archive my own talk page? Okay NBD. --Crackertalk 22:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
No. Just click "edit" on your user page, cut all the text, and paste it into your new archive page. CPWebmaster 22:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for Hoji's suggestion, and thanks to the Webmaster for implementing it! As requested earlier today by AmesG without objection by others, we've also temporarily suspended open registration. We have over 4000 high-quality editors now. We can now focus on developing new entries and having intelligent discussions without any distractions. The King James Bible was the work of only 80 scholars, and more than 4000 should be enough here. Additional editors who seek to join us can contact one of the Sysops and we can create accounts manually. Registration will open again in the future at an agreeable time.

Now I'm going to do some enjoyable work on some entries. Thanks to all and I look forward to reviewing and commenting on your entries too. Feel free to make suggestions for good entries to be featured on the front page.--Aschlafly 22:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Anybody know why RobS was blocked?

I just got on and I'm not sure what's going on. MountainDew 23:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Already unblocked, I think it was just a misclick. --Hojimachongtalk 23:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
If this was deliberate, something needs to be done about Conservative. ColinRtalk 23:02, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

There was a RobS+ vandalizing and Conservative thought it was RobS. MountainDew 23:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • LOL! At least it wasn't me, and better still it wasn't him blocking himself! --~ TerryK MyTalk 23:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Blocking RobS+ blocks the real RobS. :( Is new user registration not disabled? ColinRtalk 23:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Because conservative lacks reading comprehension? Tmtoulouse 23:08, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Hmm, checkuser reveals they didn't use any of the same IP's. --Hojimachongtalk 23:08, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Assuming that the bit about "Block RobS+ also blocks RobS" thing is true, can't you guys just rename the user and then ban the new name? --Sid 3050 23:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
This is a daily event; two or three socks like that start vandalizing pages within minutes after I log on. RobS 23:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Check User

I personally don't believe that checkuser should be used so liberally as you are using it. It's supposed to be a last-ditch effort and should be used sparringly... Some believe it's an invasion of privacy to reveal one's IP address, including me. GofG ||| Talk 23:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The IP address is used to block abuse and report offenders. There is no right to privacy in IP addresses by those who break the law or the rules.
However, GofG, if you are genuinely concerned about your IP address, then you might check on how all the other sites and services you visit are using it. We do not market goods here, but obviously other sites do. Data harvesting is a huge business, and I'd be curious what you might find out about how companies use IP addresses.--Aschlafly 00:07, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Top Template

Check out the new template at the top of this page. Do you like it? --Hojimachongtalk 01:53, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Looks fine. MountainDew 02:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't the Archive links be in a row? Right now, there is lots of wasted space... --Sid 3050 07:42, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Looks great! Thanks!--Aschlafly 08:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

T-rex and the rules of Conservapedia

I wrote the following: Hojimachong, you broke a Conservapedia rule. It is not a fact there is very little evidence.

Yet Hojimachong insists on having the following in the Tyrannosaurus rex‎ article:

"Young Earth Creationists on the other hand believe that they became extinct some 6-5,000 years ago, after Noah's Flood when the environment became too hostile for them, however, this view is supported by very little scientific evidence, and is generally regarded with much skepticism outside of the young earth creationist community."

I have a problem with Conservapedia Sysops who break Conservapedia rules since Sysops are supposed to enforce the rules. Conservative 15:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I would also add that Hojimachong is being quite uncivil. Here is what he wrote to me: "It is a fact that there is very little scientific evidence. Quote the Bible all you want, but it does not encompass the generally accepted scientific view, which is that T-rex lived several million years ago. It specifically said, backed up by very little scientific evidence, which is true. --Hojimachongtalk 15:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT) Conservative 15:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
umm... please explain how those statements are incivil. --Hojimachongtalk 16:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Nobody likes a narc. --Huey gunna getcha 15:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I love how you cite no specific rule I am breaking. It is a fact that scientifically, there is an extremely small amount of evidence supporting the YEC view, when compared to the veritable mountains of research and evidence compiled that support the contrary. It is also true that outside the YEC community, it is regarded with skepticism; often as a laughable joke. The entire article talks about why T-rex and humans lived side by side about 6,000 years ago, at least let there be a bit of factual information in the introduction. --Hojimachongtalk 15:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't there a way to write about this in a way that satisfies all parties?
I'm no expert on YE, but I gather they stand more on the authority of The Bible than anything else. It's the Creation Scientists who add to that the idea that geology backs up the Bible. --Ed Poor 16:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Hojimachong, I see you as another Tmtoulouse who insist on breaking Conservapedia rules via his Sysop position. You haven't shown there is very little evidence. No fact established. Conservative 16:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I stated that it is supported by very little scientific evidence, when compared to the mountains of research, evidence, and information gathered by secular scientists. I never said there is little Biblical evidence. And it's not my job to show that there is very little evidence; it's your job to provide citations showing that there is evidence to support your views. If you like, I'll fill up the introduction with several hundred citations backing up scientific views. --Hojimachongtalk 16:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
If either of you could provide some citations, that would be great. Conservative, could you cite a specific rule Hoji is breaking? Until you two work something out, let's have that sentence read something like this: "Young Earth Creationists on the other hand believe that they became extinct some 6-5,000 years ago, after Noah's Flood when the environment became too hostile for them, however, this view is regarded with much skepticism by people outside the young earth creationist community, who feel it is not supported by enough evidence." ~ SharonS Talk! 16:07, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Sharon, The fact rule. Conservative 16:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Conservative, you don't have citations for your position either. Until you come up with some, I am going to insert the neutral sentence which I proposed earlier. ~ SharonS Talk! 16:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
The key phrase here is "very little scientific evidence" -- and that is absolutely factual. If Young Earth Creationists read the Bible literally, and regard its word as literal and absolute, that is certainly the only evidence they need -- but it is a different kind of evidence from scientific evidence. Additionally, I would add that Hojimachong has been one of the most active, helpful, and productive SYSPOS here. Boethius 16:11, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Sharon, this rule: Everything you post must be true and verifiable. I can verify that evolutionary scientist take the position I stated. Conservative 16:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I think we are talking about different parts of the article. I'm fine with the evolutionary scientists part, but I think we should keep the sentence about why the theory is regarded with skepticism. ~ SharonS Talk! 16:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Sharon, the we should say that the young earth creationist scientists view the evolutionary view with skepticism. Conservative 16:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
  • Conservative, is there no end? Why is 90% of what is mean-spirited orbiting around your posts? Do you ever post if not to condemn others? Is it necessary to make these very public posts calling people out? It disrupts the community, looks bad in the press, and gives anti-Christians great happiness. Vengeance is the province of the Lord, Conservative, leave it there, or provide proof that God has charged you with with a mission of purity.
Sharon, your suggestion has much merit. I cannot believe the Children's worth-while project is being squandered on this sort of public warfare, by so-called adults.....--~ TerryK MyTalk 17:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I have had civil and constructive dialogue with evolutionists at this board. I do attempt to be civil given the heated passions that often surrounds the creo-evo issue. Conservative 18:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, you do not have dialogue with anybody, unless ten people come whining to you, or you need to complain to Andy. --Hojimachongtalk 18:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, good for you! It's not easy to do that. JoshuaZ in particular is "snarky" as the Brits would say. Did he get himself kicked out of here? --Ed Poor 18:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I don't think the type of posts, like this one, are at all constructive. You keep repeating that line about your civil dialog, but I have to tell you in all honesty, as one who makes his living at communication, your posts are confrontational and edgy, most of the time, in dealing with those you disagree with. These are mostly kids here, and you should keep that in mind. With everyone running here to "tell teacher" all the time, it looks grade school. I think the answer would be to protect or remove some pages, and let the students deal with them. When finished, they should be protected from edits by anyone, those few problematic pages. Perhaps you could modify your mission, and deal with some of the trench work for a while, helping out with some of the other 100,000 entries that are needed, while this gets sorted out? There are many of us here just as concerned, who manage to avoid this constant strife, and you know I'm not exactly some shrinking violet, eh? ;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Terry you wrote: "You keep repeating that line about your civil dialog, but I have to tell you in all honesty, as one who makes his living at communication, your posts are confrontational and edgy, most of the time, in dealing with those you disagree with." Given that you make your living in communication, I am surprised you were quite vague in your allegation. I am not saying that to be snide but I think it is helpful if you criticize to show that it is valid criticism. Conservative 18:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
  • I have already said, I do not think this venue is the proper place for all of that. This isn't the "attack Conservative" thread, or a court, and people shouldn't be put on trial here, which was the sole reason for this thread being made. You seem big on "dialog"-- Feel free to email or Instant Message me. I am not your opponent, I am merely one who wishes to achieve the goals of this place without constant tension and confrontation. I am sure you understand the oft-repeated criticism of we Conservatives, right? That we would rather be 100% correct, than win the war? We need to move past those errant ideas. --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
TerryK, I think it is important if you are going to make public critical statements regarding the behavior of people that you support them. I believe this is only common courtesy. I also believe that making public critical statements about people's behavior without support is a very poor strategy for a person who states they want less tension and confrontation. Conservative 20:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Surely you are joking! If you are going to publicly criticize someone, you should support them?!? That's a ridiculous idea. I'm sure you've criticized plenty of people without supporting them, I know I have (Kerry, Edwards, Bush, etc.). ColinRtalk 20:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't know if this is the right place to report this....

but I clicked 'random article' and got a discussion page about 'AFD Spanish Inquisition'. Is this right? Shouldn't random articles be substantive articles not talk pages? SpiritOf79 18:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

This seems to be the central place for all such concerns. Until we find a better place.
Anyway, I tried tacking on Conservapedia: to the beginning of the title. Maybe that will keep it out of random page rotation. Let me know if you don't think this will work! --Ed Poor 19:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Ed, since it appears to be talk on the topic page, why not paste over what is there to the "Talk" page, and clear the main? --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:18, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


I've been wondering: why is it that everyone on Conservapedia always capitalizes the word Sysop? Do you happen to know? GofG ||| Talk 19:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Because here, and other boards, its use is not so much as a function, but a title or position, with unique rights not granted to all users. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
And? Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 19:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Right. It's a title. We don't say that George W. Bush is the PRESIDENT, do we? GofG ||| Talk 19:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
We do say he's the President, when there is such a thing as president. I do try to use sysop or SYSOP, though I do slip fairly often. ColinRtalk 19:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I think this have now proceeded to picky nonsense. When I use it, I type Sysop, when talking about someone here, who holds that title. Now some title headers, I think, do auto format all text to upper case. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:44, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Nope, I'm very sure that nothing autocapitalizes anything beyond the title of articles, and that is only the first letter of the article. And it was a nitpicky question, I don't deny, but it bugs me hehe :) GofG ||| Talk 19:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • ROFL! That is ok, as long as one is self-admitted, lol. ;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Original Work

In my humble opinion (IMHO), a big defect to Wikipedia is its absolute prohibition on original work. This alienates high-quality contributors; censors legitimate criticism; and leads to a very sterile, non-intellectual environment. Instead of having the dynamic atmosphere of a university, where original work is encouraged, Wikipedia has no more intellectual attraction than a bus terminal or gambling casino.

We have never prohibited original work here, and I suggest labeling it clearly in the title (e.g., "Such-and-such - Original Work") and with an explanatory stub at the beginning. The end should have signatories of all who have contributed to the piece. I'll do an example now. I think original work will make Conservapedia a much more intellectually vibrant place than Wikipedia. WHo knows, perhaps some original work begun here can be published by the contributors in some journals. Any thoughts on this approach?--Aschlafly 19:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Original research isn't blindly disallowed on Wikipedia. If you have done research, you should publish the research in a science journal or something, and then cite the journal. The only reason original research isn't allowed is because then there isn't a citation.
Other than that, it sounds like a very good idea for C'Pedia. GofG ||| Talk 19:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I think original research is flatly banned by Wikipedia. It is one of its two basic rules, the other being the (misleading and selectively enforced) "Neutral Point of View."--Aschlafly 21:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
As much as I'd love to see the consequences, I again have to voice my concerns. The "No original research" rule also keeps out the tons of completely idiotic articles. And while on Wikipedia, other rules (like Notability, Verifiability, and Reliable Sources) form a secondary protection shield, the "Sure, why not?" approach bypasses the few things Conservapedia has in their place (read: the "true and verifiable" and the "cite sources" rules).
What would stop people from creating Why gophers are the most advanced form of life on Earth or Duct Tape and the Theory of Everything? It's idiotic, it may very well be classified as vandalism, but if I insert a disclaimer and the signature, it's suddenly okay? Or what about an article each for every possible Sudoku combination, complete with hints? Game walkthroughs? Recipes?
Conservapedia currently even struggles with the "encyclopedia" part, and you want to open the gates to such a loosely defined area? --Sid 3050 20:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Sid, you're right that some refinement may be necessary. Vandalism would still be prohibited, of course. But I am confident that Wikipedia's total ban on all original work is deadening and leads to a miserable environment lacking in any intellectual activity.--Aschlafly 21:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Refinement is all I'm asking for. :) The currently implied "anything goes" approach would lead to chaos, but setting a few borders to channel things into a constructive area may have some serious potential. Maybe you should set up a dedicated planning/brainstorming page so your Talk page doesn't get flooded by multiple topics about this? --Sid 3050 21:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it's an interesting idea and worth trying. Labelling and signing, as you suggest, are essential. I think you should decide now whether to allow pseudonymous contributions or to insist on real names. You also need to decide whether contributors of original material need to supply a couple of sentences about their biography and credentials. I'm not sure what you will do about unacceptably-low-quality original articles, original contributions of things that are not encyclopedia articles (e.g. poems and stories), or what happens when people want to make edits that the "author" or "editor-in-chief" of the article does not like, but those can be worked out as they arise (and they will!). Dpbsmith 20:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

More good questions. I think the originator of the article would have the ultimate say. He or she could dictate how much anonymity to allow. If and when it is published, it won't be possible to credit people anonymously. But many like to contribute anonymously, often for good reasons, so I would not universally ban it.
Here is my first effort: Adultress Story - Original Work. Eventually I'd like to publish it with co-authors who contribute or, if contributions are less significant, by acknowledging credit to those who would like it.--Aschlafly 21:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I think the idea is great, however it does make this more of a blog. I'd suggest either the Andy model of having a labelled section for original work, or creating a link to blogs for it. BTW, I look forward to contributing!!!!Palmd001 21:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that SYSOP ColinR is engaging in ideological edits

I believe that SYSOP ColinR is engaging in ideological removing of material from the Creation science article. I believe we stated in the biases at Wikipedia article that we did not want this to occur at Conservapedia.

I merely added the bolded material in the following material below for the entry which he removed:

An effort to show that scientific evidence is consistent with the account of Creation in the Bible. Creation science is not accepted by most scientists. However, a poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.[5] In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the United States National Academy of Sciences do not believe there is a God. [6]

Conservative 20:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

And I removed that information because as much as I disagree with "creation science," I realize many on this site are supporters of it, and such information does not and will not help creation science's case. If you really feel it does help and is relevant, leave it; I was just trying to help your side. ColinRtalk 20:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
ColinR, thank you. Conservative 20:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
  • Will you not STOP, Conservative? Why couldn't this conversation be conducted in private, or at least on ColinR's talk page, or yours? What is this insidious evil in you, that needs feeding by calling people out here? Andrew, will you not stop this crap? Where have your manners and morals gone off to? --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I stated above that for a person who wants to reduce tension you certainly have a poor way of showing it. I stand by that statement. Conservative 20:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
He has a VERY valid point. This REALLY should have gone to the article talk page first. From there to user pages. Only if THAT doesn't lead to some sort of agreement should you call Andy into things. Don't you think that the founder of this site has better things to do than moderating each of your issues with single people before you even try to solve things yourself? --Sid 3050 20:44, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Terry, thank you kindly for voicing exactly what went through my mind when I saw that post! :) --Sid 3050 20:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Conservative, it never crossed my mind that you don't honestly believe what you say. That has nothing to do with being some self-appointed "Defender of the Faith" here. There is a well-established process here. Pre-dating you and me. And you know that. You are merely frustrated, like many of us, that your constant emails to Andrew are not getting you the action you wish taken, so you now bring everything you disagree with here. As Sid posted, the dispute, or your questions as to Colin's 100% adherence to your view of what True Faith means, is disturbing. These kinds of posts have long ago moved from the realm of actually trying to help, to being merely personal vanity. You have become the class bully, warning others, and if not submitted to, running to the "Teacher" and "telling", trying to create some Star Chamber for an inquest on others Faith and Morals.--~ TerryK MyTalk 21:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
TerryK, I don't believe based on our recent most interaction at this page that productive dialogue is going to occur between us. I also wish you would not speculate on how "frustrated" I am since you are not privy to my mental state. Thank you. Conservative 21:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
  • You do not respond, nor do you seek dialog, for that has been offered many times. You seek compliance with your edicts, and if not offered up, you come here and demand attention at Center Stage. That is unacceptable. That isn't logical or scholarly. It is merely the actions of a bully. Checking your posts on others pages, one will see nothing but grim "warnings" to stop whatever it is you don't agree with, even to your fellow Sysops, who are supposedly your equals, but who you order about. If Andrew condones your actions by allowing them to continue, that is certainly his right, but I think it will be his folly. Postings such as yours damage this project, and the kids who started it. However, I now withdraw from this tempest, because I can offer nothing more to it, and it is obvious to me that your process will not be curtailed. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:53, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
TerryK, I see nothing wrong with asking Sysops to go to Mr. Schafly to clarify things. I think you are creating a tempest in a teapot here. You can rail about my "edicts" but I think it is unwarranted. I also have had discussions with the evolutionary camp. However, given our previous interaction at this page, I do not think it would be productive to attempt to have a dialogue with you. Conservative 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I'm sorry... are ideological edits bad or are just certain ideological edits bad? Because the entire Evolution article, for example, seems like one big ideological edit. And I really want an answer to this question. Myk 00:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

American Civil War article

Since there is a "civil" war of sorts going on in this page, I thought it would be more interesting to you that there is an article about the Civil War actually being worked on and improved. The table to the right of that page is also going to be used for every article related to that war, and edited to provide quick facts at a glance.

And for everyone listed above, I think it would be better to spend more time improving the articles rather than fight over them. Karajou 00:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Amen to that, Karajou! Your Civil War entry would be great to feature on the front page in a few days. I look forward to reading your work--Aschlafly 00:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Subtle Vandalism Heads Up

This is kind of a general heads up to everyone that we need to be vigilant in looking for "subtle vandalism" of changing facts so that nobody will notice. This is what Bill O'Reilly Fan promised to do, and he also claimed that there were "five or six" other editors doing the same. I caught one of the other ones - Kiowa. I suspect that most of his edits on languages are wrong. I found at least five examples of factual errors going through his edits, and some of them have been up for a long time. What I recommend is for us to keep reading pages, particularly in areas we specialize in, to make sure that there isn't anything hidden. Unfortunately, one of the things that Kiowa did was change units of measurements without changing the numbers, so there is a good chance that a good number of numbers/measurements on articles are wrong, and it is difficult to find where these are wrong.

This was a rather obvious example that tipped me off in Kiowa's case, unfortunately, some of his examples are not as obvious to spot.

MountainDew 00:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the tip. I'll easily retrieve and report their IP addresses.
Having open registration closed for a bit gives us time to catch these sorts of things. They'll be fixed over time. Thanks again.--Aschlafly 00:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
You may want to check out this IP: MountainDew 01:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
That vandalism came from Brown University. I'll report it and require an explanation from the school. This vandalism is so bad that maybe this is worth publicizing further. Thanks.--Aschlafly 01:54, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
This should also include people like user:marias, who's postings indicate he/she intends to cause nothing better than hate and discontent. Karajou 07:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Will check this out. Thanks.--Aschlafly 11:55, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Racist posting from Brown University has now been linked on the front page. The posting is here.--Aschlafly 11:55, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Vandalism, absolutely, but racist?--Murray 13:40, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

You do realize that Brown University cannot be help responsible for the actions of those who use their internet service, don't you? And I agree, that wasn't racist, it's called satire. ColinRtalk 13:54, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't say Brown should be "held responsible." But it came from Brown University's system, and that is informative.
Vandalism can be racist too, you know. The person who vandalizes by spray-painting a racial joke is doing both.--Aschlafly 15:51, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Harry Dexter White

Harry Dexter White I long imagined a featured article--even though it's still far from finished, but it will be sometime before I can get back to it. Thanks for your kind words and encouragement. And yes, the Origin works publication I'd very much be interested in. RobS 01:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent entry! We'll feature it this week sometime. Thanks.--Aschlafly 01:55, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

"CE & "BCE"

Andy, perhaps your entry for CE [[7]] should be copied over to BCE, or a redirect put on the rather empty BCE page? I added some current context and info to comments made on the Commandments Talk page here: [[8]] Thoughts? --~ TerryK MyTalk 08:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Done. Thanks.--Aschlafly 11:53, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Abomination or Biblical Abomination?

Can we change the category of entries which are considered "Abomination" in the Bible to "Biblical Abominations" or something similar. Simply using "Abomination" is more than likely offensive to thost that commit such acts. Airdish 13:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Moreover, the abomination category even specifies that the abominations are considered such in the KJV Bible, thus it would be more accurate to label the "Abomination" category as "Biblical Abominations." ColinRtalk 13:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Main Page

I made a change to Main Page, tell me what you think?--Elamdri 13:36, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Elamdri, your change looked fine to me, but I see that our webmaster just reverted it. I'll ask him to reconsider. He may have a reason that neither of us have realized. Thanks for your effort!--Aschlafly 14:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah, I see now, Elamdri. Your change is superb, and the webmaster simply deleted a duplicate link. Your link remains. Well done! Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I apologize for the confusion. Thanks for the improvement! CPWebmaster 14:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Image problem

I think I found the source of our image uploading woes last night. The code doesn't support renames. Geo. 13:55, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, great work, as always. Thanks, Geo.plrd.
On another topic, I've exchanged friendly, private emails with "TmToulouse" We are in the process of reconciling our differences. It's a good feeling to end hostilities. The goal of this site is to continue to inform in a collective search of the truth.--Aschlafly 14:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  • BRAVO and AMEN! --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


I've asked this before, but is there any reason Conservapedia doesn't have a copyright? A creative commons license or GFDL would be a good idea. ColinRtalk 14:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

A Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License would be perfect for the site. ColinRtalk 14:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I have an open mind about this, and defer to the group here. But my own view is that the GFDL does not work well with textual material, and is far too restrictive and burdensome. As a teacher, I find the GFDL restrictions to be intolerable. GFDL was designed for source code, where it might work well. I think it was a mistake to extend it to wiki-style entries.
Our draft rules of copyright are broader and much easier to use than a GFDL license.--Aschlafly 14:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Again, what about a Creative Commons license? ColinRtalk 15:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
The Gnu Free Documentation License was not designed for source code, but rather documentation. The problem with lacking a copyright stance on conservapedia is the question of "what happens if I make contributions, someone modifies my contributions, and I decide I want to remove my contributions and the derivative works?" As I understand it, currently I still own all the copyrights to the material I have submitted. Without a license that states that the submissions I make are part of a larger whole there could be some problems. --Mtur 15:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm open to suggestions. Does a Creative Commons license solve the problems of the GFDL? I'm skeptical.
Editors who contribute information already agree to relinquish their rights to editing by others.--Aschlafly 15:40, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Is that agreement stated anywhere on the site? --Mtur 15:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
The disclaimer is under the edit box. I've clarified the waiver of rights by the contributor at the link referenced there: Conservapedia:Copyrights. Thanks for raising this to my attention.--Aschlafly 16:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Claim on the Main Page about the Brown University IP

It is unfair and most likely inaccurate to characterize that racist article as coming from a "liberal" at Brown University, or implying it with your intellectually dishonest rhetoric. The article could either have been drafted as a prank, or by a conservative: the fact is that you do not know, and making such a patently inflammatory claim is shameful. Take it down.-AmesGyo 14:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I think the main page is saying that the college itself is liberal, not necessarily the person who made the edit. MountainDew 15:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
The main page could perfectly well say "Brown University" and leave it at that. I don't think Brown is more "liberal" than its Ivy League peers. Dpbsmith 16:17, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, Brown is known to be more liberal than its Ivy League peers, a liberal group itself. Our international readers, and many American readers, need to know that. I think we even have an entry on the school here. I would have to dig a bit to get details, but I think Brown abolished grades at one point, had a student prostitution ring at another point, graduated Ira Magaziner who ran the very liberal Hillary Clinton Task Force, and on and on. Conservative influences at other Ivies such as sports, Wall Street, engineering, math, etc., lack much influence at Brown.--Aschlafly 17:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)