Difference between revisions of "User talk:RSchlafly"
(→A serious Biblical matter: This is out of my expertise)
(any assistance would be appreciated)
|Line 203:||Line 203:|
: This is out of my expertise. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:19, 26 November 2012 (EST)
: This is out of my expertise. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:19, 26 November 2012 (EST)
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:25, 25 November 2012 (EST)
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:25, 25 November 2012 (EST)
Revision as of 09:25, 25 March 2013
- 1 Clean
- 2 I would appreciate your support
- 3 1992 Election
- 4 Catch-22
- 5 Theory and Fact
- 6 Twin Primes question
- 7 Shawshank Redemption
- 8 Vandal
- 9 Don Imus Edits
- 10 Thanks for the Unblock
- 11 question of lawyers responsibility as Officer of the court
- 12 Merry Christmas
- 13 Happy New Year, Roger!
- 14 Continuum
- 15 Prime Number
- 16 Physics
- 17 From PatrickD
- 18 Small Thanks from WLink
- 19 L.A. Official: 55 Jobs After $111B Stimulus
- 20 Evidence
- 21 Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel
- 22 Request for Admin assistance
- 23 Out of curiousity
- 24 A serious Biblical matter
- 25 E=mc2
I would appreciate your support
I am sending you a note about the uncited template and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia.
The Conservapedia article on homosexuality is now ranked in the top 10 of http://www.google.com searches. I estimate that the Conservapedia article on homosexuality is giving 300-400 people new people a day to know about Conservapedia who wouldn't otherwise know about it. When the article is in the top 5 of the search engine rankings it will bring in SUBSTANTIALLY more as the top 5 entries get the lion's share of the internet traffic.
Now a main reason why the Conservapedia homosexuality article is ranked in the top 10 is that the search engines highly reward articles with footnotes that link to other interent websites. Accordingly, since our uncited template is successful in getting people to cite their material as Andy Schlafly stated, I made note of the uncited template in the following Conservapedia articles:
Conservapedia Manual of Style: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style
Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help
Currently about 50% of Conservapedia articles are completely uncited and a high percentage of articles that are cited are poorly cited. If this persist, not many people are going to know about Conservapedia as our articles will be poorly ranked by the search engines. However, I strongly believe that the uncited template will make a substantial difference.
Accordingly, I would appreciate your efforts in supporting the uncited template.
Conservative 15:40, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
*Conservative, around here, it is the practice of all Sysops, except you, to discuss changes before implementing them, and asking for support. The Commandments may only be changed upon direct approval from Andy. You did not receive this direct approval, no? Kindly try and act like a mannered person, post your proposals to the Sysops and Andy, then be prepared for discussion and support, not the other way around. I could support your idea, except for the encouragement of placing templates without limitiation. We have far too much clutter already, and your failing to limit template placement, by stating some guideline for what a minimum number of citations is, will lead to chaos and endless debate as to how many are too few and how many are "enough". Thanks. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 15:52, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
Nice revert. Ferret 18:51, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
- Since in the United States, Ferret, we do not elect our President's with a direct popular vote, and never have, references to who won a majority percentage of the vote are misnomers. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
- Yep, realise that's not how it works. It's an interesting and quite deliberate part of the design on behalf of the founding fathers. It's not about winning a majority of the voters across the nation, it's about winning a majority of the voters in the right number of states, with smaller states deliberately getting more than their proportional weight of the electoral college. I think it's a beautiful system that works as well with 50 states in 2004 as it does with 13 (vote counting issues aside!). Whether a particular president won a plurality, or absolute majority, of the vote is of interest for that very reason - it illustrates the system working exactly the way it's designed to work. Bush got the votes he needed in the states he needed - Gore did not. Simple as that, isn't it? (OK, it wasn't THAT simple, but let's not go there!) Ferret 05:57, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for adding the percentage on that election. -Additioner 14:49, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
Which novel are you referring to 'published ten years earlier' on the Catch-22 page? Maestro 17:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for adding a new article, in this case kluge. Please, though, categorize your articles when you create them; while there are those of us who will go through and clean-up the uncategorized articles, you know your subject better than we do.
For a list of categories, go here: Special:Categories. To add a category to your article, type two open brackets, then "category:" followed by the category you want. Just add two closed brackets and you're done! You can add as many categories as you feel are appropriate. Thanks! Aziraphale 02:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
Theory and Fact
Please try and remain civil when it comes to altering other people's edits - there was no reason to refer to the information as "junk". If you thought it was verbose you could have just said so. Regardless, I am going to reinsert some information in a less confounding way. At the moment the flimsy terse mention of biological evolution in the article is insufficient for anyone to understand the what is considered fact and what is considered theory. It's a great example for the article. However, I don't want an edit war so my changes will only be minute at first. Regards. Wisdom89 12:19, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
- I was civil. If I thought that verbosity were the problem, I would have said so. The reinserted text is wrong and confusing. RSchlafly 12:54, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
- Absolutely not. There is nothing wrong with the information. If you have counter evidence regarding Modern synthesis or that evolutionists refer to the science as both a fact and theory, then that would be one thing. However, based on your actions, I can only presume that you simply don't want the information posted. Things aren't incorrect simply because you say so. If you require sources I'd be more than happy to supply them - but by dismissing the information, removing it without notification and referring to it as "junk" is slightly inflammatory. At least that's how I'm taking it. My edits are in good faith and meant to help the project of conservapedia. If you doubt this at all, just look at my edit history. Anyway, it would have been better had you and I discussed the changes first. Wisdom89 14:04, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
- Your presumptions are incorrect. Evidence for and against the modern synthesis is irrelevant. The article is just about some simple definitions. I have posted on the Talk pages an example of how your own text contradicts your own sources. RSchlafly 15:04, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
Twin Primes question
- I would guess yes, but until someone solves the problem, no one knows for sure. RSchlafly 20:53, 3 September 2007 (EDT)
- Roger....that is what they are still saying about being able to teach me Trig! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:16, 3 September 2007 (EDT)
"A new prisoner called Tommy comes to Shawshank prison. Tommy tells another prisoner, who tells Andy, that Tommy had had a cellmate at a different prison who bragged about killing a rich golfer and some hot-shot banker's wife, and the banker getting jailed for it. This is clearly the real killer of Andy's wife. Andy sees the possibility of a new trial since this evidence would prove his innocence. Warden Norton dismisses the story, telling Andy to ignore this made up story. When Andy argues with him warden Norton sends Andy to solitary confinement, to remind Andy of his place in the prison hierarchy." --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 05:22, 8 September 2007 (EDT)[
- That is just an argument for a court action. Nowhere does the movie say that Andy was innocent, or that he was wrongly convicted. If Andy is innocent, as you say, then for what is he being redeemed? RSchlafly 06:08, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
- I will email Steven King and ask, Roger. I just remember it from the book and movie, is all....so it must have been important to the story, otherwise I would imagine King would have snipped it. Argument for a court action? Lawyers have enough business! The way he was given the news, not expecting it, nor thinking it was coming, seems to indicate he wasn't looking for a ploy. I will revert myself back in the movie list, if you haven't already, pending my hearing back from King. Fair enough? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 06:35, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
- Whether Andy was expecting the news, or looking for a ploy, is irrelevant. He is likely to jump on any opportunity to get out of prison. The beginning of the movie show overwhelming evidence against Andy in court. It avoids showing the murderer when the trigger is pulled. Apparently the movie wanted to create some ambiguity. My question for you: Under your interpretation, what is the "redemption" of the title? RSchlafly 14:24, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
Redemption comes in many packages, I have found. Perhaps the humanity, the ability of some to maintain and even nurture the type of complex "friendship" (humanity) that the characters actually developed, in spite of their circumstances, is the "redemption". Writers speak constantly in metaphors, and not all of them built on sound ground, but in some loose manner, the characters were role-reversed, eh? The prison guard in his own prison, without walls, and the inmate in an actual one, yet actually more free? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:16, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
I found a vandal named spoonboy. It seems that he deliberately changed information on the Post-Diluvian Diasporas article in order to make a mockery out of Conservapedia. He also messed up the link on the page. Please examine his edits and take action if necessary. Lukecorlando 22:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
Don Imus Edits
When you remove the specific insults that Imus used, you remove the whole point of caring about things like racism and sexism. I suppose what you're suggesting is that those two things (racism and sexism) are acceptable? Perhaps we should just overlook them? If we are to learn anything from what Mr. Imus said and what happened to him as a result, we need to know exactly WHY he was fired. Now that he's been rehired by conservative bastion 770 WABC in New York, has the conservative agenda been amended to include "protect Imus?"
Again, when you remove what he said from the article, you remove any idea about how WRONG what he said was. This seems to me to be an attempt to soft-soap a racist, sexist comment. I wonder why you wish to do this. Perhaps you, yourself, agree with Mr. Imus' statements? Do YOU believe that the Rutgers University Ladies Basketball Team is a bunch of "nappy-headed hoes?" This seems a gross and base mischaracterization of a group of ladies I'm sure you are not personally acquainted with.
Since Conservapedia makes the claim that it is non-biased, and that it is supposedly the alternative to the liberal-biased WikiPedia (and the accuracy of that assessment is something I leave to another debate at another time), WHY, sir, have you seemingly attempted to slant things to FAVOR a radio personality who made RACIST and SEXIST remarks and who is employed by a major conservative media outlet?
I await your response, sir, with something approaching eagerness. Artiefisk 19:00, 27 January 2008 (EDT)
- I did not remove the quote. It was someone else. You are complaining to the wrong guy. RSchlafly 21:30, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Since there was no contribution between mine and yours, sir, I feel that you are fibbing. Peruse the history of the Don Imus page and see. Perhaps someone else made the revision and used your name? Unlikely. My only conclusion is that you or someone using your name condones institutional racism and sexism in the mainstream media. If this is true of you, you ought to be ashamed. If it is someone else using your name, you ought to be outraged. Either way, at least ACT like you care. Artiefisk 15:30, 29 January 2008 (EDT)
- I checked the history. You inserted the quote here  and it was removed by [User:Iduan], not me. I merely shortened your mischaracterization of what Imus said. You wrote that Imus "classified a group of female athletes as women of decidedly ill repute". That was just not correct. Imus did not say that anyone had ill repute. Please do not make false accusations against either Don Imus or me. RSchlafly 16:15, 29 January 2008 (EST)
How did I make false accusations against Don Imus? He called those women "nappy-headed hoes." Where I come from, "nappy-headed" is meant as an insult against the typically tightly-curled African-American hair type. "Ho," in common use, is slang for a "whore" or "prostitute," which, when you clean it up for the good old "family-friendly" Conservapedia, means "woman of ill repute." So, to insult typically African-American hair type, and to call these women "prostitutes," hmmm, I dunno, seems like RACISM and SEXISM to me. One doesn't have to be a trust fund baby to deny the truth, but it helps, I suppose. Good day, sir. Artiefisk 16:30, 31 January 2008 (EDT)
- You are welcome to your opinions, but your edit was inaccurate. RSchlafly 18:51, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the Unblock
I do enjoy especially the part of this project which concerns the history of sciences. It just a hobby of mine, and discussions like ours are a welcomed to delve into the literature. --BRichtigen 16:15, 13 November 2008 (EST)
- RS, check me if I'm wrong, but I'm finding BRichtigen a bit of a distraction. Is he really doing good work somewhere around here? --Ed Poor Talk 18:54, 13 November 2008 (EST)
- I can't tell if you are finding him a distraction, but how is that his fault? Philip J. Rayment 20:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)
- I had some disagreements with BRichtigen, but he is definitely doing good work. Please do not block him. RSchlafly 00:23, 14 November 2008 (EST)
question of lawyers responsibility as Officer of the court
Hi, is a lawyer who knows his client is guilty still permitted to provide a defense or is he meant as an officer of the court , to plead guilty and attempt to mitigate the sentancing ? I realize there may be a difference between what should happen and what does happen. I lived for a while in Australia and England so it may be an issue of US law vs English .. Thanks oh, this relates to the importance of good character in the appointment of white house counsel Markr 19:40, 21 November 2008 (EST)
- Under US law, the lawyer is required to argue the case however the client wants to plead it. RSchlafly 15:12, 23 November 2008 (EST)
- ok , thanks Markr 13:22, 24 November 2008 (EST)
and I hope the New Year will give us ample opportunity to discuss interesting topics, like we have done this year! Yours BRichtigen 18:20, 23 December 2008 (EST)
Happy New Year, Roger!
|“||Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!--Oprah Winfrey||”|
Hi Roger. Foxtrot and I have been arguing over the Continuum article and we really need someone to step in and mediate. I have a problem with the entire second paragraph really: "The continuum is called so because it was the first (and most prominent) continuous set studied by mathematicians. No additional numbers may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense linear order without endpoints. Since the complex numbers add the imaginary number, i, to the real line, this is one reason they have no natural linear order. Any linear order of the complex numbers needs the Axiom of Choice to be constructed."
First of all the reference to a continuous set is unneccessary. I had never heard of such a thing. When I googled it I saw that it is an obscure notion that has no place in such a short introductory article to the topic. I see no reason to believe that the continuum was called so because it is a continuous set. My best guess is that the use of the word continuum predates the use of the term continuous set.
The second sentence about not being able to add more numbers to the reals is essentially meaningless. What do we mean by number? We are discussing the real line as an order theoretic/topological object. It is easy to extend the reals as such an object with out losing the dense linear order. This ties into the last statement. I outline in http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Continuum&curid=81756&diff=621255&oldid=621024 how to construct the lexicographic order on the complex plane. This refutes the last sentence as such an ordering doesn't use AC. In addition the complex numbers ordered in such a way is, from an order theoretic point of view, many copies of the reals laid out end-to-end (if you get my meaning). This shows that not only can we add a point to the reals we can add uncountably many copies of the reals to the reals without destroying the dense linear ordering.
Thanking you in advance for your time. AndyJM 08:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)
You were the last editor to change the article on Prime Numbers. Could you have a look at the section Sieve of Eratosthenes? I tried to raise the interest in changing the - IMO poor - picture on Talk:Main Page, Talk:Prime Number and File talk:Prime number.gif, but no action took place. Could you have a look into it? Thanks, Clement ♗ 12:28, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
Could you please take a look to the last edits? --Joaquín Martínez 08:20, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
- Why did you revert? I don't necessarily agree with all the edits, but they appeared to be constructive edits. Did you disagree? RSchlafly 12:38, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
- At first it seems to be wrong in Mechanics and Thermodynamics. The editor E-mail me and I was not sure; that is why I asked your opinion. Now I will fix the mistake. Thank you. --Joaquín Martínez 17:45, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
- He also made some other edits. Did you object to those also? RSchlafly 23:04, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
There has been some discussion of the recent changes by RoyL to the divergence and curl articles. Your name came up. So you might want to look at those pages, and their histories, and their talk pages, and my User_talk:PatrickD page. PatrickD 21:36, 15 August 2009 (EDT)
Small Thanks from WLink
Wanted to thank you for the support you gave for my proposed changes on the relativity page. I am a bit saddened that some people won't see reason, but at least we gave it the old college try. --WLink 07:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
L.A. Official: 55 Jobs After $111B Stimulus
Should there not be evidence for this? References etc.?
Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel
Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up HERE. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up HERE. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. Conservative 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Request for Admin assistance
To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See here for the latest accusation. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. MaxFletcher 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
Out of curiousity
....what do you think about your brother's attempt to rewrite the Bible? --MatthewQ 19:01, 17 November 2011 (EST)
- As far as I know, he is trying to translate it, not rewrite it. RSchlafly 11:55, 19 November 2011 (EST)
A serious Biblical matter
Aschlafly wrote the essay Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space (Epistle to the Hebrews). First he wrote:
|“||"The Epistle to the Hebrews is the nineteenth book of the New Testament, and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it."||”|
User:Iduan toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:
|“||"The Epistle to the Hebrews is the nineteenth book of the New Testament, and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it."||”|
I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.
I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.
I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person in a Biblical matter (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.
- This is out of my expertise. RSchlafly 13:19, 26 November 2012 (EST)
--AugustO 19:25, 25 November 2012 (EST)
Please take a look at the first section of this article. We seem to be at an impasse. Thanks, Wschact 09:25, 25 March 2013 (EDT)