User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion request

Hello Andy, would you please delete these two redirects: [1][2] They give way too much recognition to a leftist website created to vandalize CP and which slanders CP editors. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2019 (EDT)

Done as requested!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2019 (EDT)

Miley Cyrus photo

Hello Andy, do you think it's inappropriate to include this photo on the Miley Cyrus page? File:Miley Cyrus.jpg I don't have much of a problem with it, but DouglasA disagrees. --1990'sguy (talk)

I'm OK with it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

MPR suggestion

This struck me as a very Conservapedia type of story: "'In God We Trust' will remain on US currency as Supreme Court declines atheist challenge." PeterKa (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2019 (EDT)

So the last will be first, and the first last

Could you please explain this concept in the language of set theory? What is the paradox, and how is it resolved by set theory? Thanks. --AugustO (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2019 (EDT)

The paradox is obvious. In number theory and virtually every other system of logic, the last cannot be the first. But in set theory it can.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
I take the bait: how can the last be the first in set theory? --AugustO (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for archiving. Enumeration of elements of a set is up to the intelligent designer. This is how Georg Cantor proved that the set of real numbers is larger than the infinite set of rational numbers. But you're in good company if you resist his way of looking at things. Many great mathematicians of his time thought (incorrectly) that he was some kind of charlatan.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

Georg Cantor's great breakthrough ("Cantor diagonalization") was not in showing that the rationals are countable—that is a fairly straightforward construction—but in using that fact to show that the reals are not countable. There are many ways to specify the correspondence between a given denumerable (countable) set and the natural numbers. In fact, there are a uncountably infinite number of ways to set up the correspondence. Whether any of these constitute "intelligent design" is not for me to say, except that I think that term gets overused in certain quarters.

Then there's the matter of a "well ordering". A "well order" on a set is an order such that any subset has a least element. So a set with a "well order" is sort of like the positive integers—any subset of the positive integers, even an infinite subset, has a least element. (Note that the full set of integers, or the rationals, or the reals, are not well-ordered by their normal arithmetical order.) But it is a theorem of ZFC logic that any set has a well-order.

Does the well-ordering theorem constitute intelligent design? That's not for me to say. Does it disprove the Cantor diagonalization theorem? No. The well-order on the reals necessarily uses the Axiom of Choice, and cannot be constructed. Cantor diagonalization can be constructed.

Getting back down to Earth, sets can have different orders—the natural numbers from 1 to 100 can have an increasing order and a decreasing order (and 100 factorial other orders too.) With that notion, "the last" under one order "will be first" under the other order. But this is completely obvious under any system of logic, including set theory. But claiming that it's true for the same set with the same order is simply nonsensical.

But I'm in good company if I resist your way of looking at things in this manner. I'm sure AugustO is also.

SamHB (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2019 (EDT)

"sets can have different orders" - precisely. But the number line does not. What Jesus taught was nonsensical to logicians and philosophers of his time, but perfectly logical once Georg Cantor overcame intense opposition and developed the breakthrough of set theory. If Cantor's opponents had recognized the Bible as a book of logic with an open mind, then they would not have mistakenly opposed Cantor so much. Ditto for Thomas Paine.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
The real line, like all sets of more than one element, most definitely can have multiple different orderings. Here's an alternative ordering off the top of my head. Let SWAP(X) be result of swapping the 1st and 2nd decimal digits, the 3rd and 4th digits, and so on. Then we can define an ordering on the reals that has X < Y in this ordering if SWAP(X) < SWAP(Y) in the usual numerical ordering. While this may sound weird and contrived, this sort of thing happens all the time in set theory and measure theory, and is actually very close to what goes on in Cantor diagonalization.
Many people were criticized or vilified at some point in their lives. Georg Cantor, Thomas Paine, Galileo Galilei, Louis Pasteur, and Oliver Heaviside come to mind. I don't think it is fruitful to analyze these cases in detail here, and I don't think you have established that the criticism of Cantor arose from an insufficiently open-minded reading of Matthew 20:16. SamHB (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

Could you please quote one philosopher or logician of His time who was baffled be Matthew 20:16 (or Mark 10:31 or Luke 13:30)? Especially as Matthew writes ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι and not εἰσιν οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτο? --AugustO (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2019 (EDT)

Many critics of the Bible were probably baffled by it. Don't have quotes handy, but perhaps some can be found on atheist websites.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
So your claim that "what Jesus taught was nonsensical to logicians and philosophers of his time" was probably just made up. --AugustO (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
My statement was self-evident. When I have more time I can research it further, but the reality is that writings of Jesus and his followers survived to a far greater extent than those of his detractors, so the thinking of non-believers is not always easy to find.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2019 (EDT)

I for one am not baffled by it at all. Jesus was not making a statement about set theory or measure theory. He was making a moral/ethical statement about pay scales. One can disagree with Him (and some of the workers did), but His statement was very clear. The "first" and "last" referred to the wages of the workers and the time when they had joined the work crew. Jesus's statement was clear in Biblical times and is clear now.

One can't just say "I have invented a new field of mathematics, and I am calling it 'set theory'". One needs to provide various theorems and results showing that it is a fruitful new area of mathematics, Cantor, and others, did just that. There are the various theorems about cardinality and measure theory. There's the Baire Category Theorem (which provides another proof, independent of diagonalization, that the cardinality of the reals is strictly greater than the cardinality of the rationals). There's the Cantor set, which is a uncountable set of measure zero, a seemingly paradoxical result. There's the Cantor function, which has derivative equal to zero everywhere except on a set of measure zero, but has f(0)=0 and f(1)=1, also seemingly paradoxical. And there are other theorems, like the Heine-Borel theorem and the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem. And Zorn's Lemma. And, of course, all of analysis and topology.

You can't just treat set theory like some simple monolithic thing invented by Georg Cantor. The notion that the field could have been worked out by an open-minded reading of Matthew 20:16 is rather far-fetched. SamHB (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

Set theory is a different style of reasoning. Otherwise there would not have been such intense, hostile opposition to it. But its power and logic ultimately prevailed over the opposition. And Georg Cantor is properly given all the credit.
Workers at the time of Jesus disagreed with him, as many do today, when he observed paradoxically that the "last shall be first, and the first last." But when viewed as a set theorist does, there is not paradoxical about it at all.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

MPR deletion

Hello Andy, would you please restore the massive amount of information accidentally deleted in this edit on Template:Mainpageright? (scroll down a bit): [3] I also sent you an email about this. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

Thanks, I thought I restored it already. It seems to have the proper link at the bottom.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
Sorry, I did not see that you had already restored the info. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

Copy&paste of PD or freely usable material

Hi Andy, User:Honeyko is wondering if it is acceptable to insert public domain or other freely usable text from Infogalactic (or perhaps other freely usable sources) into Conservapedia articles. It is not plagiarism, but do we have a policy in regard to republishing such materials? I was thinking that is was generally discouraged, but I'm not finding much about the topic in our rules and documentation.
Thanks! --DavidB4 (TALK) 19:28, 20 June 2019 (EDT)

Infogalactic is not public domain, but is under a Creative Commons type of license. So, no, that material should not be copied here. If something is truly public domain, then copying to here is OK but attribution should be included. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2019 (EDT)

A different name for the "Gish Gallop"

Eugenie Scott coined the term "Gish Gallop" as an insult to how Duane Gish supposedly went from claim to claim so fast in a debate that it would take much longer to answer each claim. However, Atheists do the same thing all the time, including Aron Ra. I heard Kent Hovind use the terms "Ra Rush" and "Ra Rant." I was wondering if there is a place for an article that describes this tactic without using the name that insults Duane Gish. Shobson20 (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2019 (EDT)

Good points. But I checked Duane Gish's entry and it says the term is used by his critics. What do you suggest? Please feel free to edit as you think best.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2019 (EDT)

Image question

Hello Andy, is it appropriate (with licensing) to upload this image? [4] It was taken in the Oval Office and is on Trump's Twitter account, but it doesn't explicitly say that it's Public Domain. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

That's public domain. We can use it. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
Thanks! I will upload it right now. It's good to have a photo of one of the greatest political figures right now along with one of the greatest minds in constitutional law. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
Right: Two-time winner of Conservative of the Year meets with its first winner (for the last decade)!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
I think both men will be candidates for the upcoming 2019 Conservative of the Year nominations. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

Conservative Sports

Hi Andy, I don't have enough wiki experience to add to the table you created but I suggest Cricket as a conservative sport. It is commonly called 'The gentlemans sport' and I cribbed this from the internet: the game only gained popularity in the 17th century, when English aristocrats started playing it. They decreed that cricket would be played in ‘a gentlemanly manner’ , which means no sledging, cheating, bodyline bowling , temper tantrums or excessive appealing. If the batsman knew he was out, he should ‘walk’ even if the umpire decided otherwise. Cheating is punished quite heavily and the only team currently which breaks the gentleman's code is Australia who sometimes behave in a very nasty manner which is frowned upon (they have been fined multiple times for poor behaviour. The NZ Cricket team however are considered some of the best and kindest team - often making sure their competition are OK if they are felled or struck by the ball and playing with true sportsmanship (see here where a NZ player assists an opposing team who have just lost the match). A true sport of gentleman. JohnSelway (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

If you read the article it says Then Elliott made that noble gesture of sportsmanship to Steyn distraught on the ground, offering him a hand up. JohnSelway (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
I would consider adding shooting sports: [5][6][7] Also, schools in more conservative areas are creating shooting sport teams (and I've heard that they used to be common in public schools): [8][9] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
These are terrific suggestions. Please feel free to add them, or I will. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
Thank you Andy. If you could add cricket I would appreciate it. I don't have enough wiki experience! JohnSelway (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
I figured it out by copy/paste. JohnSelway (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

PD template unlock request

Template:PD tag is used heavily on our image collection. It is designed to require a parameter ("source") so that the source URL can be included in the template. However, some people are attempting to use the template by simply referencing it and pasting the link. This is something which should work, but it does not. Ideally no parameter name should be required, but since it has been built and used this way, there is no changing it now. Instead, I would like to attempt to set up this template so that it accepts the URL with or without the "source" parameter tag, to simplify usage without breaking it on the 261 pages currently using it. I am not particularly skilled at this, but I think I can do it.
Would you be willing to unlock the template so I can give it a try? Note that it is also under cascading protection from File:John McCain official portrait 2009.jpg, and perhaps others, so the protection on such pages will also need to be updated. Thank you! --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:24, 11 July 2019 (EDT)

I unlocked it. Please let me know if I need to unlock anything further! Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2019 (EDT)
Thank you! I think I have finished with it, as best I can, so it can be locked again, if you want. --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:55, 22 July 2019 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement

As I'm sure you know, not all people who are "conservatives" agree with each other. Even a lot of "conservatives" disagree with some things this website says (Such as conservatives who are not Young Earth Creationists, even devout Christians like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek are not YECs). For example, a newer user named Enr15 edited the article on the Roman Catholic Church to have an extremely biased Catholic point of view. I reverted the edits because I know that major changes like that should not be made without discussing on the talk page (I recommend he read "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" or watch this video: [10] ). At the same time, Northwest is Catholic. Is there a space where I can voice my own editorial opinions which might not agree with some of the information in this website (I won't change any mainspace articles without permission)? As an example, I have a very negative attitude towards extreme Christians and "Churchians" who condemn rock music, including Jack Chick, so I can see where some of his critics are coming from. I have also added many Christian Rock songs to the Conservative Songs article. I read his tract on that, and I do understand that many Christian musicians have been given tempting offers to take God out of their music since Christian music doesn't sell as well, and some have sold out, but not everyone does. Petra, in particular, has made some of the most wonderful songs ever, and it's mainly due to the songwriter and only original member, Bob Hartman. They are deeply devout and not Satanic by any stretch of the imagination. Look up the testimony of John Schlitt sometime, it's an amazing story of a man who went from the sin and vice of the secular music industry into the clean Christian music industry. The contrast of his before and after life is incredible.

You know that I've voiced disagreements about the Video Game article, and I like the fact that DavidB4 has made it less negative and judgmental. A lot of people get banned because they don't know how to disagree respectfully. Shobson20 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

Differing viewpoints are welcome on this website in the search for the truth. The talk page of an entry is the best place to post commentary. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
I was thinking of adding a lot of general commentary to my user page. SamHB has done so with his page. But I wonder if doing too much of that constitutes a violation of the 90/10 rule. Shobson20 (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
It should be OK to post repeated comments to your own talk page.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
The general principle should be that, if you edit something in a way that someone is likely to object to, put up your reasons on that article's talk page immediately. Respectful discussion, without 90/10 threats, will often follow. While the 90/10 rule is, in the end, whatever the blocking person wants it to be, I think the intent is to stop "anklebiters" (I wrote that article, in response to just such a person!) who waste people's time with incessant and repeated whining over the same issue.
I use my user page, as opposed to my talk page, much more than many people do. This is done not so much for "90/10 insurance", as for making clear statements about where I stand on various issues; this is important, since most people here disagree with those stances. One's user page is a more formal and proper way to make such statements than one's talk page. This paractice may or may not suit you. SamHB (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
Also, this is probably a little off-target, but if you have some specific topic you want to voice your opinion about in detail, there is also the option of writing an essay. Essay polices are much more lenient, and allow for strongly opposing viewpoints and arguments, as long as they are done in a reasonable and respectable manner. Otherwise, your user page is your own, so as was already discussed, this is a good place for such commentary. The 90/10 rule is, as SamHB alluded to, intended only to stop those who constantly chatter and discuss, while almost never making any meaningful contributions. It is not intended to stifle discussion, though. Just keep making some substantive edits as well, and it seems to me that you should be fine. --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:55, 22 July 2019 (EDT)

Insight from Singapore's wealthiest man

The richest person in Singapore (one of the wealthiest countries in the world) has admitted that God and His Son Jesus are the most important things in one's life: [11] He notes (and refutes) how modern culture rejects God and puts things like sex, alcohol, drugs, money, and material success (as seen in Hollywood movies, he notes). This seems like a powerful refutation of part of the secular left's worldview. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2019 (EDT)

That's amazing ... and Breitbart rather than the lamestream media carries the story!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
Are there any CP articles that are appropriate for me to add this? This is too important, I think, to not find a place for. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
Perhaps in the quotation section and/or elsewhere in this popular entry: materialism? Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
Done! If there are any other good articles to add it, please let me know. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2019 (EDT)

Don't bite the newbie editors via reversions

CP needs research assistants, copy editors, and people to do maintenance and formatting work, not just content contributers. Most wikis have a Don't Bite the Newbies policy. I find this archived discussion useful. If CP doesn't have an official policy, it still is useful for CP Admins to know that reverting newcomers has the effect of limiting CP's user base. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:05, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

Other than people inserting nonsense and/pushing misleading/errant liberal/leftist tripe, I think this was an excellent post. A little politeness and diplomacy goes a long way.Conservative (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
Oftentimes, new editors try to change the POV of articles, copy info from Wikipedia, or made other edits which are unencyclopedic (on an encyclopedia). Rob has a good point on treating new editors with respect, but it cannot be at the expense of the quality of CP's articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

Unlock request

Would you please temporarily unlock File:Holodomor2.jpg, per a request from RobSmith so he can add categories? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (EDT)

I think you can re-lock it. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2019 (EDT)

Violent Democrats

Hello Mr. Schlafly, Conservapedia has a page on atheist mass shooters, but Conservapedia does not have a page on mass shootings committed by Democrats/leftists. Can one be made? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JobsNotMobs (talk)

We already have Left-wing violence in the Trump era, where examples like that are already mentioned. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
Yes. A Violent Democrats article would only start a nuclear arms race with a Violent Republicans article here and elsewhere. OTHO, if trends continue and Democrat party leaders continue advocating violence, it may be necessary someday. Just not now. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:16, 5 August 2019 (EDT)


A poll found that Republicans have become even more opposed to gun control, despite massive pressure from the media, Democrats, the establishment, and liberal activists: [12] This setback for the Left might be a good MPR entry. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2019 (EDT)



I have a question regarding article creations. Should I create an article for KIWIFarms, and if so, should I list it as a conservative site or a liberal site? On the one hand, it mocks disabled people and may have driven someone to suicide. But on the other, they did show the massacre at New Zealand and didn't cave to censorship, so... yeah. Not sure what to list it as, if it should be created that is. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

It's your call. Disapproval of someone or something is not an absolute bar on creating an entry about them. But I would leave out any suicide accusation as too speculative.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
The site is neither. It's a juvenile meme troll factory and barely satirical or parody. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:01, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
Okay. Well, since it's neither, probably better off not creating them. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
It's amazing that sites that allow free thought and exchange of ideas are considered conservative, and sites that are run like a concentration camp are considered liberal. Why is that? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:30, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

Move request

Andy, can we move this Essay:Rich Man and Parable of Talents to Parable of the Talents. It looks like only minor changes would be needed for this to be a proper article. Progressingamerica (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2019 (EDT)

Image upload request

Hello Andy, would you please upload the vastly superior Commons version of John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence painting to File:Declaration of Independence.jpg? The file is protected, so I can't do it myself, and I have experienced technical difficulties trying to upload new versions of existing images in the past (see this and this). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Hoped that worked!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for doing it, but the CP file still looks blurry and poor (compare to the Commons link). This is the same problem I encountered. I wouldn't want to upload a new image since this one is linked in so many articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
I deleted the prior version. Any better now? It may be that the Commons link uses a large file to get the better resolution, but I'm reluctant to go to a larger file which might slow speed.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
It's still showing the same version. I doubt file size is causing it, as the resolutions for the Italy maps I tried uploading a few months ago were the same. Overall, I think it's good to avoid using large file sizes, but for important and high-profile images like this, a clearer, quality image might be better. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
I've encountered this problem before: upload to a new file but the old image persists. So I uploaded to a separate file and inserted it into the template. If you like the image in the template, we could then update the other links (less than 20) in just a few minutes.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
I like it, and we can update the remaining links -- once that's done, you could delete the old one if you want. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, I've seen this before. It seems that even after overwriting/deleting and replacing, that image name holds the original image's aspect ratio. Using a different name is the way around it...I have not found a fix. Perhaps it is fixed in newer versions of Media Wiki. --DavidB4 (TALK) 22:29, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Not to detract from DavidB4's comment above, but in addition to the old file (File:Declaration of Independence.jpg), please delete File:76485685i79.jpg, a redirect which has been protected. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Update MediaWiki, bots

I was wondering if MediaWiki could be updated. This version seems out of date. As a site note, would it be possible to use bots to help stop vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChickenHacker (talk)

Yet one more unlock request

Hi, I hate to keep bothering you with these, but when you get the chance, would you please unlock Template:Infobox person? I would like to add some documentation to the template's info page, and perhaps expand the template itself with some more parameters. Thank you! --DavidB4 (TALK) 15:10, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

American Progressivism

Andy, I would appreciate your yes/no about this.

Debate: Does Conservapedia need at least one single page devoted exclusively to American Progressivism? Progressingamerica (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

I think some context can be found here: Talk:Progressivism#Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn --1990'sguy (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Pro-choice? how about anti-life or pro-death?

Liberal rags like Wikipedia refuse to use the term pro-life, instead saying "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice." I think we should return the favor and use one of the two terms in the section title, since that's what they really are, as this video shows: [13] Shobson20 (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Night mode problems

I have been having some problems with this 'night mode' DavidB4 told me about. I am currently editing from in the GMT + 7 time zone, so I am unable to contribute sometimes. He told me that 'If this is a problem, you could contact User:Aschlafly. He might be willing to upgrade your account to get around this.' so I was wondering if you, being the owner of this site, could somehow find a way for me to edit during night mode. I understand if this is not possible at this time, as DavidB4 told me that upgrading my account may be necessary for me to edit during night mode, which I may or may not be worthy of right now. Please let me know what can be done as soon as possible. My only intention here is to contribute to this fantastic and trustworthy encyclopaedia as effectively as possible.

Many thanks, --Toby Chester (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Double redirect request

Hello Andy, would you please look at the newest comment here -- Talk:Allies -- and fix the double redirect on this protected redirect page? --1990'sguy (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

A request for a lock on Infant baptism

Andy, as I expressed on the talk page of Infant baptism, during my research I found an abundance of virulent polemic online regarding the hot-button topic of infant baptism both pro and con, enough to give me reason to humbly request that you please consider, if appropriate and reasonable, locking the main article, solely in order to avoid vandalism and distortion of the balance of presentation through subtle editing by opponents or proponents of the doctrine, to slant it more toward, or away from, a factually balanced treatment. I included both sides of the argument in the reference notes of the body of the article and in the listing of External links. Constantly reverting the changes could be a persistent annoyance. Objections could be reserved to the article Talk page, with a relevant note saying so at the top of the page. Trusting your judgment. Peace be with you, now and for ever. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

Locked as requested. Will also put a message directing folks to the talk page.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

An election preview

I think we killed two birds with one rock: we made Katie Hill the poster child for White supremacy and the Equality Act. Need to build these themes. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:15, 26 October 2019 (EDT)

IMO, a Nancy Pelosi staffer looked at our Katie Hill page, saw links to both White Supremacy and the Equality Act, called Hill into Pelosi's office, and Hill was gone before she even made it back to her own office. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:09, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Main page popular articles

Could you add The New Colossus, at least just for a few weeks. Progressingamerica (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2019 (EDT)

Done as requested. Thanks for the suggestion!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
If you would like to de-list it from the popular list, it has been updated now. Thanks for your help. Progressingamerica (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2019 (EST)
Replaced it with Samuel Adams. Thanks for the suggestion to make a change, and please make more in the future!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2019 (EST)

Problem with Talk:Infant baptism

Andy, RobS on the Talk:Infant baptism page is beginning to be a real problem. I tried to be patient but it's getting out of hand. Please take a look and see if the Talk page too should be locked. I'm not certain one way or the other, but I don't think he is posting any thing useful anymore, just repeating the same argument. It ceases to be an example of vigorous debate. The whole page has become bloated. I tried to be fair and answer every objection. It seems to be utterly counterproductive. If you do lock it, it will remain an example of debate on the issue. As before I trust your judgment. I'm not going back to look. Quite frankly it's been hard on my bloodpressure. Peace be with you. Michael Heart. --Dataclarifier (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2019 (EST)

I'll take a look but the general policy is to leave talk pages unlocked. You don't have to respond there and everyone knows that a talk page is merely a discussion that typically contains different viewpoints. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2019 (EST)
Michael, you seem to have a tenuous relationship with the truth. I called you out on this in January, here, where you had falsely claimed that your user page had been vandalized, and that you had arranged for it to be locked.
And now you claim (4 sections above) that the infant baptism article has been vandalized. Aside from a notice from Andy that it has been locked, and a very few edits today by Wikignome72, who, as an admin, can blow past any locks, the page has 331 revisions, every one of them by you.
So now the discussion has, not surprisingly, moved to the talk page, and it is a very lively and robust discussion. And you now want that locked? That's not the way things are done on talk pages. Perhaps you would rather do your writing on a blog someplace, that lets you control comments from other people. I believe there are services on the internet, such as "blogspot", that let you do that. You might want to contact one of the User:Conservative people about doing that. But that isn't how things are done on talk pages on an open wiki. Especially now that the locking of the article pages has moved everything to the talk page.
SamHB (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2019 (EST)
Michael, the above rant is by a user who has been repeatedly blocked. Your edits are very welcome here and please ignore the rude tone above. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2019 (EST)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there is anything that Dataclarifier should or should not do. I think the robust discussion on the talk page is fine, and none of it bothers me. I apologize for anything that was considered rude. SamHB (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2019 (EST)

I don't think the talk page should be locked. CP has editors of different theological viewpoints, and inability to reconcile those different viewpoints shouldn't be an excuse to stop discussion of them. And to be fair, the vast majority of the text on the talk page are comments from Dataclarifier, which is fine, but because of that, it's not fair to put all the blame on RobS for the long text on the talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2019 (EST)

And spamming a talk page is not discussion. Neither is removing other people's comments to remove them from context. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:37, 3 November 2019 (EST)
In fact, the mainspace "Infant baptism" page should also be unlocked -- there was zero edit warring on it, so Dataclarifier didn't even have a reason for requesting protection. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2019 (EST)
He's put a lot of work into all his stuff. Most of his postings on talk really belong in Essay space if he doesn't want to be interrupted by argument or refutation. Many of these discussions then could be held on an Essay space talk page.
His basic argument is that infant baptism brings salvation, yet he's never defined what salvation is despite repeated requests. Consequently, the discussion strays off into numerous other topics. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:08, 3 November 2019 (EST)
A link could even be made from Infant baptism to his Essays. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:13, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Andy, I'm more grateful than I can express for your remark above regarding my edits. (I do disregard the rude tone of the "rant".) I had come back to mention that I discovered that other sites on infant baptism and other related "hot-button" topics have talk pages that have been archived one, two, three, even eight times, full of comments and venom responding to their topics. Accordingly, I withdraw my request that Talk:Infant baptism be locked, so that there will be more opportunity for others to speak up and further enliven the debate. Eventually I suppose an archive will be necessary. I am absenting myself from that Talk page. It just means that I won't be available to be baited any more, and will no longer be anyone's favorite target. That may put out the fire. (Just take a look at my own talk page, at the remarks made at the bottom by RobSmith's "Suggestion", and my final definitive answer in response: User talk:Dataclarifier#Suggestion.) Pax vobis --Dataclarifier (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2019 (EST)

The mainspace "Infant baptism" page should be unprotected. There was absolutely no edit warring, and Dataclarifier dominated the page's edit history. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2019 (EST)
Dataclarifier, you wrote: "Quite frankly it's been hard on my blood pressure."
You should keep in mind that if people want to find answers to an issue, there are tons of resources on the internet plus God gives wisdom/answers to those who humbly seek Him. So if you see a page or two on the internet that you want to change, but cannot do so to your satisfaction, its certainly not the end of the world and certainly not worth getting your blood pressure up over. Wikignome72 (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2019 (EST)
Per RobSmith "Suggestion" on my talk page, I just created Debate: Infant baptism and moved into it most (not all) of the debate on the Talk:Infant baptism page, leaving intact on the original talk page at infant baptism the comments re the article, its structure and sources of information cited there, and posted a note redirecting all general comments on the topic to Debate: Infant baptism. I did the same on my own talk page. By the way, the blood pressure response was unexpected, and is entirely physiological and involuntary. I was surprised that it happened. I think my creation of the new debate page will be more useful. (I don't intend to contribute anything more to it.) --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2019 (EST)
(The "final definitive answer" that I posted on RobSmith's "Suggestion" entry on my Talk page, has also been included in the move of the debate from the Talk:Infant baptism page to Debate: Infant baptism. --Dataclarifier (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2019 (EST) - )
I was suggesting you place the original two lengthy sections on Protestantism versus Catholicism in one Article Essay space, minus the intervening comments, to preserve the original research. It just needs an appropriate title. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:03, 5 November 2019 (EST)
For example: Essay: Differing perspectives on infant baptism. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:25, 6 November 2019 (EST)

A few minutes ago I copied this entire posting to Debate: Infant baptism as relevant part of the whole general debate. --Dataclarifier (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2019 (EST)

Problem: Obsessive redundant repostings

RobSmith persists in reposting to Talk:Infant baptism the same edit already moved twice to Debate: Infant baptism. This seems rather obsessive. I moved his postings verbatim to the Debate page. He calls it spamming. I don't believe he will stop reposting the same comments again and again at Talk:Infant baptism and badgering me about the matter on my Talk page. Please look into the matter and do what you think appropriate. (Seems like this is proof that the main article needed to be proactively locked.) Thanks to you and all of the good Protestant editors for your own outstanding works on Conservapedia. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2019 (EST)

Do not remove other peoples ongoing discussions. That is a blockable offensive. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:03, 6 November 2019 (EST)
The Talk page has 8,000 page views, your Debate page has 176, or 2%. I can appreciate you trying to hide a "debate" you lost badly, but removing other peoples ongoing comments and discussions, who have committed no site policy violations, is a no no. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:09, 6 November 2019 (EST)
Perhaps we need a page on Wikietiquette. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:13, 6 November 2019 (EST)
The same reposting was just now repeated at Talk:Infant baptism. RobSmith's POV has been preserved now four times on Debate: Infant baptism. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2019 (EST)
Talk:Infant baptism clearly directs all debate on doctrine to Debate: Infant baptism. It isn't hidden. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2019 (EST)
RobSmith imposed a block of my IP and Dataclarifier ID in response to my moving of his doctrinal debate to the Debate page where it is more appropriate. (Block now expired)
I have never deleted or removed his comments from Conservapedia. Nor have I blocked him to prevent debate. In addition he has reposted again verbatim the same reposted doctrinal debate argument at the Talk:Infant baptism page. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2019 (EST)
There are three other editors besides myself engaged in discussion in the two subsections thaT you have removed several times now; when an editor engaged in a discussion comes to reply, they do not know where to find it. Please, show some etiquette and do not interfere with other editors ongoing discussions. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:05, 6 November 2019 (EST)

Andy, this entire encounter with the adversary has been a real faith builder and a privilege to experience. This has not been my only one. I don't make light of it by any means. Thank you for your supportive comment above. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Dataclarifier, we live in a post Protestant Reformation period where Protestantism is growing rapidly in the world.
You can't pretend that Protestants/Protestantism and their arguments don't exist and move the opposition's arguments to a debate page. This is unacceptable.Wikignome72 (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2019 (EST)
You can't move doctrinal debate about infant baptism on the articles talk page to a debate page. Please stop doing this. It is impolite, must end and it is counterproductive. Wikignome72 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2019 (EST)
Copying text to another page without removing it from the page copied is not a move. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2019 (EST)

error in link to external source needs minor correction

A colon needs to be replaced by a hyphen in the following link at locked article Infant baptism.
12:48.htm should have been 12-48.htm (I can't get to it.)


Thanks, Andy. --Dataclarifier (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2019 (EST)

Conservative of the Year 2019

I have created the Conservative of the Year 2019 article. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2019 (EST)

Terrific start!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2019 (EST)
Would it be appropriate to post the article on the main page until a winner is announced? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2019 (EST)

Bilski v. Doll

Hello Andy, I see that the Bilski v. Doll article has not been updated. I tried to update it, but it's too much of a mess. The two Wikipedia articles on the case (1,2) don't have the same name as the case, so it seems to me that the situation is relatively complicated. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2019 (EST)

I improved both. Please let me know if further edits would be helpful. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2019 (EST)

Scribes (Bible)

I just completed a new article Scribes (Bible). I hope it's worthy of Conservapedia. Pax vobis --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2019 (EST)

Wow, that's fabulous! Very well done.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2019 (EST)
I did a major revision with additional material and division with subheadings for improvement. Includes section on calling scribes "my father" (Mt 23:9). --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2019 (EST)
Looks even better now. I did a minor punctuation improvement. Terrific work.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2019 (EST)

Technical display problem at Religion#Development of religion

Just a "heads up" alert. Recently, every time I have accessed the article Religion (simply to read it) there has been a display flutter and blackout of a portion of the article at Religion#Development of religion. The section reads fine in edit mode—no problem there. All other parts of the article remain stable in page display. I am unable to determine if the fault is with my own computer. Tech error? Virus? No other parts of Conservapedia have presented this difficulty. --Dataclarifier (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2019 (EST)

I have observed so such problem, on the religion page or any other. I would recommend that you reboot your computer, perform a comprehensive virus and malware check (installing the necessary antivirus software if necessary; I recommend Norton), restarting your web browser, and trying again. SamHB (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2019 (EST)
Sam, just now no problem. (I have had Norton for more than 2 years now). My internet server is through a land line. My own tech says it's probably the area I live in, and fact that I'm near "end of the line". Coincidental. Thanks. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2019 (EST)


Just created article Eros from already available material in other articles here. I assume you don't need me to notify you every time I create another article. Thanks for all you do, Andy, for your efforts to present unbiased truth. --Dataclarifier (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2019 (EST)

My article on Hong Kong is published

My article on Hong Kong was published in Hong Kong-based Dim Sum Daily. It has been up only a couple of hours and it already has a thousand page views. Could you put on MPR and help it along? PeterKa (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2019 (EST)

Good article. I hope you continue making first hand written accounts in a series. (you don't have to be at ground zero for all events, just cover the issues involved). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:06, 24 November 2019 (EST)
My follow up story has been published in the Seattle Times. Dim Sum Daily toned me down a bit, but the editor at Seattle Times played up the anti-communist/pro-democracy angle. I submitted various pictures to both newspapers, but both editors selected the same picture of me in a mask. PeterKa (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2019 (EST)
Tremendous work. Very well done! Posted.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2019 (EST)

Gouverneur Morris

Just thought I would mention, the Westin states that "Our hotel takes its name from the state's first Governor"[14] Gouverneur Morris was never a Governor that I am aware of. Progressingamerica (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2019 (EST)

You're right! Great catch!!!! I'll fix it if you haven't yet done so.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2019 (EST)
Can we just remove it altogether? It's about another person altogether. What value does it add to the article? Progressingamerica (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2019 (EST)
Moved it to another entry, but feel free to object to that new home for it!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2019 (EST)

request for restoration of possibly unitended deletion of a section of an article

Andy, the following section was deleted after you locked the text of Infant baptism. See earlier version 1584071. It was based on historical information I had found online re the topic. Could you please restore it? Thanks. --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2019 (EST)

Andy, I am 100% positive that Tertullian did not indicate what Dataclarifier says he did. Please do not grant this request.
Dataclarifier wanted this article locked after he put various material in the article. On a wiki, the dialetical method (The dialectical method, is at base a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments) and civil discourse are important - especially on matters where there are competing theological camps. The infant baptism article has been a trainwreck as far as this occuring. And unfortunately, I don't see things turning around anytime soon.
When I got involved in the article Petrine Primacy, we managed to hammer out an article without too much rancor, etc. But right now and for the foreseeble future, I do not have time to be a referee or a big contributor to infant baptism.Conservative (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2019 (EST)
Simply FYI relevant to comment by Conservative, I noticed the following Diff. The online sources supporting the deleted segment in ref notes were also removed with the deletion. I understand and sympathize with Conservative's lack of sufficient opportunity to improve the balance of the article. I am in a similar bind. I only had come back to consult the article, not to critique it. That's why the appeal here from both of us for your judgment in the matter. Faithfully yours, --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2019 (EST)
I moved my reply to Dataclarifier from my user talk page message area to the Infant baptism talk page area. It is located HERE now.
The battle between Dataclarifier and Robsmith is kind of a rhetorical Thirty Years' War. At this juncture in my life, I am endeavoring to avoid internet drama - albeit not always successfully. But after responding to an atheist on my talk page via "SS American Religion: Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead" about the eventual triump over secularization in the USA, I decided to renew my pledge. One thing for certain, even atheists admit that the atheist movement is dead or dying (see: Decline of the atheist movement). I tango and cha-cha-cha on the grave of the atheist movement! Olé! Olé! Olé! Conservative (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2019 (EST)

Earliest historical mention of infant baptism: A.D. 185

The earliest explicit mention of infant baptism is found A.D. 185 in Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 22:4.[1]

For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. (boldface emphasis added)
This born again is a direct reference to John 3:3-5:
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
King James Bible (KJV)

The Greek New Testament word for "man" here in John is τις tis "anyone".[2]

See interlinear text of John 3:5. No human being is excluded. Age is not mentioned.


. .

Thanks, Andy. Hope you have a wonderful Christmas. --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2019 (EST)

Mysterious duplication of entire article onpage

Andy, just "eyeball" and check out the following diffs. [15] [16]. My own check of the page's View history does not show who made the duplication. I am certain I didn't do it. Can you determine who was responsible?

Back when I first asked for the article to be locked, I thought something like this, or some other form of mischief, would happen. Be assured I'm not asking for it to be locked now. I can check it myself from time to time. Thanks. Have a blessed Christmas. --Dataclarifier (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2019 (EST)

Anyone can check things like this, you do not need to enlist the site administrators's help. Just look at the page history, the way I did just now. The extreme duplication to which you refer was made at 10:12, 17 December 2019‎, by RobSmith. That was 69 edits ago. All 68 edits since then were made by you. I can't pass judgment on why RobSmith made the change, though I would guess that it was an accident, of the sort that we all make. His edit comment was "organized churches, not individual Christians".
The addition "and the danger of death before baptism", added by you at 14:06, 18 December 2019, is safely in the current version, so no further action should be needed. But when you repair Rob's changes, be sure that is preserved. In fact, you will need to check that all of your edits since then are intact. By the way, Rob's accidental change had the effect of precisely doubling the size of the article, from 184,252 bytes to 368,504 bytes. Whether it was a precise duplication of the content is something I haven't checked; I would suggest that you do that. And then be sure that your recent 68 edits, including the the one about "and the danger of death before baptism", are intact.
I occasionally find myself needing to track down situations like this; it's very annoying. Good luck. Please do not assume malice.
And have a blessed Christmas. SamHB (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2019 (EST)

More night mode problems

I am still having some problems with the Conservapedia night mode. I am still editing from in the GMT + 7 time zone, which is becoming increasingly bothersome for me. You did promote your account to SkipCaptcha privileges back in October, but I am still unable to contribute for a significant portion of the day. You said that 'overnight editing privileges can be added after there are more edits from your account'. The number of edits that required for me to gain overnight editing privileges was never specified, but I have frequently made numerous contributions to this encyclopaedia. In short, I am requesting that my account be promoted to overnight editing privileges, or at least for the number of edits required for me to receive the promotion be revealed. I have enjoyed my time so far on this encyclopaedia, despite the time zone problems. Overnight editing privileges would be a huge help, and allow me to contribute to Conservapedia more effectively. Thank you.--Toby Chester (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That's right, I've been on this site for a long time and I still have problems with Night mode. Shobson20 (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2020 (EST)

Night mode edit request

I wish to be able to edit when CP is in night mode. It's frustrating to be locked out until 10:00am, or in the case of today, hours after night mode is supposed to be over. I hope you can be sure that I won't vandalize the site. Just for curiosity, what was going on, anyway? Shobson20 (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2020 (EST)

Page name blacklist issue

Hi Andy,
It looks like user:BHathorn is have an issue where he is trying to create a couple pages which are being blocked by the page name blacklist. Would you please take a look? See: Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany#Question_about_a_permission_error
Thanks! --DavidB4 (TALK) 23:12, 19 January 2020 (EST)

Updating information, etc.

Hi Andy, I was just wondering, if you have the time, can you look through my edits just to make sure all the information I added is accurate and consistent? I'm just concerned that some content I added could've been worded better, was outdated, or inaccurate, etc. In addition, how hard is it to become an administrator? I saw the Conservapedia Guidelines page but it wasn't specific on the requirements to become an administrator. Also, just wanted to mention, thank you for founding Conservapedia; I stumbled across this site about half a year ago, and by now, with this great site and with other organizations with similar idealogies, I'm a proud conservative! --Liberaltears 8:42, 23 January 2020

RobSmith threat to delete balanced article

Andy: RobSmith intends to delete an article without any evident justification for his charge of "sarcastic mockery". I did what I could to present a factual article at Burning at the stake, Biblical pretext for, now simply Burning at the stake. I responded with some adjustments in the article. See my simple explanation as a response on the talk page, along with this text that Rob posted on my User talk:Dataclarifier
Ridiculous arguments
If you want to continue ridiculous arguments without engaging on the Talk page of Burning at the stake, Biblical pretext for, I'll just delete the page as "sarcastic mockery" of God's word. You need to engage other editors directly on Talk when legitimate questions are raised - without spamming blocks of text and redundant links. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:57, 4 February 2020 (EST)
Whatever you decide. Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2020 (EST)
The user is in gross violation of Conservapedia Commandment #1, copying text from and citing Wikipedia. See here and here. It's a pattern I've detected on just two pages. Burning at the stake, Biblical pretext for is sarcastic mockery of God's word, until I renamed it. But he continues to insert sarcastic mockery of Christianity cut n' pasted directly from Wikipedia. Some of the problems could be fixed with rational good faith engagement with other editors on discussion pages, however the user is in the habit of spamming talk pages with massive blocks of text and redundant links, some of which is cut n' pasted from Wikipedia and elsewhere.
I'd suggest the user take some of that plagiarized text from Wikipedia and simply rewrite objectionable portions, but he seems more interested in using biased, non-Christian, and anti-Christian content he borrows from Wikipedia, and filling CP up with it. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:37, 4 February 2020 (EST)
Andy, take a look at his edit summary
01:04, 4 February 2020‎ RobSmith - I won't follow you with a pooper-scooper always) (undo)
This is self-explanatory. Is this harassment? The information I posted to which he so strongly objects is corroborated independently by the several independent Pew Research articles et al. You know my work. I post nothing that I have not been able to verify. As to the above, I have no wish to be baited with anti-Catholic antagonism. That is why I don't respond to his attempts to "engage" with interminable interactions, and limit my response to simple, factual statements.
What did you think of the recent Democratic and Republican performance in the Senate? The win of the Chiefs at the Superbowl 2 February was an exciting addition to my 73rd birthday 1 February. As always, Peace be with you. Michael --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2020 (EST)
The information was moved to Talk. It's salvageable. But I won't re-write and clean up your mess. I did enough on mainspace Burning at the stake. If you need input and help, engage there. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:56, 4 February 2020 (EST)
Andy: RobSmith just now threatened an edit-war.
You can earn yourself a temporary block for reverting a Sysop with the rollback key. I;m going to rollback your edits a second time on Burning at the stake. Meet me on the talk page to discuss changes or enjoy a temporary block for edit warring. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:08, 4 February 2020 (EST)
--Dataclarifier (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2020 (EST)
No, I explained you can enjoy a temporary block for edit warring. You need to engage in good faith at Talk:Burning_at_the_stake#Rewrite-it to fix the content you cut n' pasted from Wikipedia. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:15, 4 February 2020 (EST)
It would not be hard, at all, to fix the content you cut n' pasted from Wikipedia. It requires simple good faith editing. But here you are, spamming Andy's talk page with redundant postings.
I can make simple suggestions to objectionable material - there. But you must engage me there. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:22, 4 February 2020 (EST)
See my good faith response at Talk:Burning at the stake#Dataclarifier response --Dataclarifier (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2020 (EST)
RobSmith has removed subheading Dataclarifier response from the link I provided, so you can't access it. Go to Talk:Burning at the stake#Rewrite-it and scroll down to my now untitled response. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2020 (EST)