User talk:Aschlafly/Archive13

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Warning of archival

I'm going to archive this entire page soon. We have new users and let's clean the messy slate here. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

So I guess that all unresolved issues will be considered as "Resolved, I see no problem"? --Sid 3050 20:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Idea - Change the section name to "Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help -- (Resolved 31 March 2007)" when something is resolved. This way, when archiving it would be easy to pick out the resolved sections. Furthermore, there are times when someone doesn't feel that something is resolved and it gets archived and forgotten until it is brought up again. --Mtur 20:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Alternatively, strike the section headings once they've been completed. Just to get an idea that "this is now resolved, moved, or closed for discussion." The idea is the same, open issues are clearly identified and don't get tossed off into an archive. --Mtur 21:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

(I've moved all the Planned Parenthood discussion to its talk page. Let's try to keep topical discussions on the appropriate talk pages. Thanks)--Aschlafly 21:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Name spaces need seperating

Would it be reasonable to:

This way individual critiques of various things (such as Conservative's "Theory of Evolution") can be in a place where they are respected as single author articles. Of course these essays should be linked from appropriate articles.

Furthermore, it cleans up the space for the original article to have unbiased (not necessarily neutral, but certainly not one sided) material that would be a good resource for students to learn from. --Mtur 20:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Maybe I am wrong, but I seem to remember Andy posting about users being welcome to create their own articles, seperate from the actual topic page, to express opinion, and pointing a way to do so. --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I can't seem to find the reference or the link on the how to for this. It certainly hasn't been encouraged so far. --Mtur 21:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I do believe Andy made an example page, for user articles....someone else remember this? --~ TerryK MyTalk 00:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Can anyone explain clearly what a namespace (or name space) is, and how it would help us to organize this project? We don't even have an article on this concept. --Ed Poor 11:32, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
The problem with user pages is they don't necessarily represent a completed work (the current trend appears to one of draft or scratch space). Furthermore, if user pages are to be the answer for the essay question that still doesn't handle the debate and conservapedia documentation collision of name space. --Mtur 14:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

(note: this appears to have moved to Talk:Main_Page#"Namespaces" - need better labeling ) --Mtur 19:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Lost in the archive #12

I believe that the following have not been resolved to the satisfaction of those asking the questions:

Were these issues resolved? or will they pop up again right away? --Mtur 20:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I thought the copyright owner gave TK consent to copy.--Aschlafly 20:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
One of the four inclusions. There where 3 other sources that were copied that have not been granted any reproduction rights. If you go back and read the bit, you will see Sid pointing out that was not the only item. --Mtur 20:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Mtur. And yes, while the largest section (the one, huge quote) has apparently been allowed (Even though it should just be summed up in a few sentences - it's just the opinion of a guy and should not make up half the article. However, that is more of a style and not a policy question.), the entire article comes 1:1 from four other sources, and TK wrote... maybe 30-50 words in total. It should be noted that those other four parts are not marked as a quote and are simply pasted into the article, making it look as if TK wrote them himself. I would really appreciate a deeper review of this, and I provided all five sources in my initial post (and on the Morality Talk page). This is a matter of maybe five minutes of scanning sources to find all the copied paragraphs. --Sid 3050 05:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Quote mining is something an attorney does every day. Trials depend on it. There's nothing wrong with it. If a specific quote is taken out of context, then let's address it on the appropriate talk page.--Aschlafly 20:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, "quote mining" is different than selecting the relevant parts of a case. Selective citing is picking out the part of a case dealing with the preliminary injunction standard, and then citing it, in your brief about what a preliminary injunction is. "Quote mining" is editing out context clues about the full range of the case - it involves a mens rea element, if you will, to willfully obscure the meaning of the case or the cited authority. Now, I don't know what kind of attorney you are (!), but next year, I have to take a class mandated by the ABA dealing with ethical use of authority. I am certain that they will tell me that misrepresenting legal authority could get you disbarred - misrepresenting authority being the same as quote mining. If you don't agree that "quote mining" is wrong, then... could you give us your Bar ID #...?-AmesGyo! 20:59, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I found the civil rule that would go to quote mining, or misrepresentation of legal facts or authority - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), the "Representations to Court" clause.-AmesGyo! 21:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
For non-law types who want to follow this, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I'm not a lawyer, I just occasionally read groklaw --Mtur 21:12, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Footnote 215 under the Lexis LexSee search of FRCP 11 yields this about "misleading documents": "Sanctions will be imposed in attorneys who signed misleading documents intended to burden opposition and to exhaust their resources and thus impair their ability to fully present their case. Harthman v Texaco, Inc. (In re Tutu Wells Contamination Litig.) (1995, DC VI) 31 VI 250, 162 FRD 46, injunction gr (1995, DC VI) 885 F Supp 776, revd, remanded (1995, CA3 VI) 74 F3d 1228." This goes to the heart of what quote mining is. Do you intend to "OK" this sort of conduct?-AmesGyo! 21:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
That's not what is really meant by "quote mining." The term means looking for quotes to use against someone. It's done every day in law and in politics.--Aschlafly 21:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Then we're clearly talking past each other. Let's redefine what I mean when I say "quote mining," as instead, "abusive citation," that is, misrepresenting authority. Will you agree that that's bad? Will you also agree that "abusive citation" is practiced on the Theory of Evolution page?-AmesGyo! 22:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Would the quotes in Theory of Evolution that are out of context be admissible as such? Most of them are out of context - within context they say something completely different - instead one snippet of their writing or speech is taken to try to cast doubt on the entire thing. In some cases they are posing the question and then later in the work showing where that question posed is wrong - it is the question then that is quoted trying to make it look as if they are unsure of it themselves. --Mtur 22:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Right. Things like that are bogus, and Andy, Conservative won't edit them out. Will you take a personal approach, and investigate these misrepresented authorities, or rely on the judgment of other users on the talk page?-AmesGyo! 22:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
As long as we agree that it is acceptable to use someone's quote against him, even if he changes his mind later, then let's look at a specific example. You might as well pick your very best example first. Can we pick this up on the talk page for the topic (I assume Theory of Evolution talk page)?--Aschlafly 22:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Absolutely, but tomorrow. Is that okay? But consider looking here.-AmesGyo! 22:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
That's fine, Ames. Lots of other things to do here.--Aschlafly 23:04, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, here is the link to the example of abusive citation in the Evolution article - Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_6#Quote_Mining. I archived it to preserve order. The talk page was 90kb long! But I still want you to have a go.-AmesGyo! 14:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, I'm not going to spend all night on this particular issue. Please pick your best example and provide the quote and why you think it is out of context. I looked at your site about and it did not have the quote. I looked on the content page and it has several quotes by Gould. You don't say why the quote, which I don't even know what it is yet, was taken out of context.--Aschlafly 19:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Suggested articles for "News" (formerly Items of Interest)

  • These Muslims sue the airline and the passengers. Why sue the passengers? Because they complained about suspicious behavior and the Muslims were removed from the flight: Muslim Clerics Sue Airline and Passengers
  • Liberals in Seattle are pushing a state-wide paid-family-leave bill. It's no surprise business lobbyists are fighting this bill since it would create a new entitlement program, raise taxes and later the program would be expanded by liberals: Paid-family-leave bill in doubt
  • Liberals are defending a sex edition of a high school newspaper. When the parents complained, a faculty advisor and the newspaper's editors defended their decision to publish the paper: Parents Protest H.S. Sex Newspaper Crocoitetalk 00:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Wow, Crocoite, those are all great stories! I don't want to overdo the sex issues, and the story about the Muslim airline passengers will be a replacement to the story about the British teachers tomorrow. I used the Conservapedia story for now. Thanks!--Aschlafly 01:04, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, thanks for the recognition and for posting the articles on the main page. It's fun looking for things that might help this site. I don't mind if you choose not to use certain articles, I'm just excited that I'm having a positive contribution to Conservapedia. Crocoitetalk 01:16, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I think this is one of the most important things we do here - refer people to news items that they are not likely to see through traditional media outlets. Thanks so much for bringing these to my attention!--Aschlafly 01:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually, it was the webmaster the zapped the template.--Elamdri 05:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

More great articles:

  • Even though this is a sports article, it provides important information about the new owner of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times and his plans. The article also provides interesting insight into the finances of the newspapers and how the internet is affecting their business.Zell wins Tribune auction; Cubs to be sold
  • The liberals are alive and well in France. There are many interesting quotes in this article, such as "Only 36 percent of French people think capitalism is the best economic system for the world, according to a 2005 survey by Globescan, an international pollster. In China, that figure soars to 74 percent." Here's another lovely one, "France has long been a spiritual homeland for leftism, from the revolutionaries of 1789 to Jean-Paul Sartre and other 20th century intellectuals. France's Communist Party was among the biggest in the West until the Cold War ended." Finally, "Just 8 percent of the work force is unionized, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., yet strikes and mass protests are frequent. That's because the French don't have to belong to a union to enjoy generous job protections guaranteed by the state, or to march against a factory closure." I especially loved that last quote about the French unions compared to American unions. For even more fun, read the entire article here Vive la revolution! Radical left lives on in French presidential election
  • The College Democrats at BYU are trying to prevent Vice President Cheney from speaking at the university. There is a great quote in this article "“We recognize that members of our campus community are entitled to their opinions,” said university spokeswoman Carri Jenkins. “Political neutrality does not mean there cannot be any political discussion.” The objections of the few should not silence the voice of the majority. Cheney may face tough crowd at graduation
  • Here's a great picture of Hillary Clinton [1] Is this the way you would react to seeing an old friend?

Enjoy. Crocoitetalk 13:45, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Great stuff! I'll review it all, and post some of it this afternoon. Thanks!--Aschlafly 13:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

New articles:

  • A Conservative blogger/citizen journalist Stephen Taylor is posing a threat to the Canadian MSM establishment. Press shuts down blogger

Enjoy Crocoitetalk 23:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Great stuff, Crocoite. I just posted the Seattle WTO outrageous story! Thanks again.--Aschlafly 23:32, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I think my article on Augustus Caesar would be a good featured article. It's unquestionably accurate, concise, and neutral. Also, the life of Augustus is just fascinating.-AmesGyo! 15:01, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll check it out. Thanks, Ames!--Aschlafly 23:32, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
GREAT WORK, Ames. You're on the front page now!--Aschlafly 01:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Overuse of the "stub" template?

I wanted to get your opinion on what I personally perceive to be an overuse of the "stub" templates on articles that aren't really stubs (i.e. longer than one paragraph) and have been expanded. At least in my opinion, the template is a bit of an eyesore, especially if the article is several paragraphs long. MountainDew 04:37, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

(Just chiming in with some info and an opinion) I think in "some" (160+ or so, if I remember correctly) cases, those articles had been using the "Stub2" template, which got deleted by one of the higher-ups with the note to use "Stub" (and which I later recreated as a "Stub2 -> Stub" redirect in order to avoid having tons of redlinks that had to be replaced).
In some cases, I'd argue that the stub template is still needed, even if the article is a few paragraphs long. It depends on the context. For example, a biography about a famous person with two or three paragraphs would most likely still classify as a stub, but an article about a lamp post might be mighty fine with one or two paragraphs.
Some cases would be "fixed" by undeleting the old "Stub2" template (which had just been the one or two line in italics), others should be decided on a case-by-case basis. For example, I had initially tagged Nobel Prize with a Stub2 template after my rewrite, and I'm considering to remove the now-huge box-template since the article is not really an urgent stub (but still needs some work - it's far from complete in my eyes). --Sid 3050 --Aschlafly 09:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)05:20, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I think what Dew is saying, isn't that they are not needed, on occasion. MountainDew, just remove the ones you think are unnecessary. --~ TerryK MyTalk 05:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
If I understood your "isn't that they are not needed, on occasion" correctly, that's what I understood, too: The big, ugly box (which originally was a short text note in 160+ cases) isn't always needed, but it depends on the context. --Sid 3050 05:39, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Perhaps we will just ask that only Sysops decide, after consultation with Andy or another Bureaucrat, or maybe that's something only the Bureaucrats should be deciding, since it impacts the look of the site. There are far too many banners all over the place. --~ TerryK MyTalk 05:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Fine by me. Just add a clause that next time a template gets vaped, the vaping admin should also clean up all the pages on which the template was included. :) --Sid 3050 05:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, that is their job, no? I wasn't aware Andy had appointed users to do those things, but I could be wrong. --~ TerryK MyTalk 05:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... arguably. But I think that obvious errors that can be corrected by users should be corrected by users. For example, the "vc"/"vandalcandidate" template had still been called on a few talk pages long after it had been removed. It had removed by a sysop, so I guess the message is "This should not be here". In my eyes, the sysop in question should've taken care of the resulting mess (lots of red-text "Template:Vc" links at the beginning of the pages), but since that didn't happen, I cleaned up without "asking for permission" or anything. --Sid 3050 05:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
MountainDew's point is excellent, and I wholeheartedly agree. I've even warned users for adding to many "stubs". Wikipedia inserts these eyesores anywhere and everywhere. If an article is short, why do we need a glaring eyesore to say that? It's obvious the article is short.
Moreover, we like conciseness here. We're not like Wikipedia, which implicitly acts like more words is better. A short entry is often a better entry. Thanks, MountainDew, for pointing this out and please remove stubs however you like.--Aschlafly 09:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I've added a few stubs myself, and usually to get that article started if for nothing else (I hate stubs!). I'll get to mine as soon as possible, which means immediately after I work on the article before it. Speaking of which, a former stub, American Civil War: 1861 is just about finished, and I can spend the next seven and a half minutes just recuperating from the strain before I begin work on improving the stub that is American Civil War: 1862. So sue me...I'm having fun doing it! Karajou 16:37, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I thought the benefit of a stub was that one could look them up as such and then improve them Myk 17:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Obviously Karajou is making very good use of his stubs, and I can't wait to see his finished work! I'll put it on the front page.
My point, and perhaps MountainDew's also, is that users should not simply go around and insert "stub" on every short entry. Unlike Wikipedia, which has very long-winded and confusing descriptions, we like conciseness here. A short, concise entry is sometimes the best entry, particularly in fields of science and economics. So let's not assign "stub" to every entry that is short. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

That's precisely what I meant. Obviously, if a biography of a US president or something is only one paragraph long, then the stub entry would be appropriate. If it's just a definition, there's no need to expand. Back when there were only 20 or so stubs, I actually went to the list of stubs to find articles that I should work on. Now, there's so many that it seems like a pointless exercise. MountainDew 19:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

A one-paragraph bio on a president? Don't let Teddy Roosevelt hear that, else he might come after you with that big stick of his! Karajou 19:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Many of those stub designations are improper and should simply be edited out, particularly for economics or scientific topics. I've warned users about overzealous insertions of "stub". We don't want thousands of words to explain a concept to a student.--Aschlafly 19:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

lost from /Archive12#Wikipedia_article

I have copied your response to talk:Wikipedia, and will respond there to avoid further polluting your talk page. --Scott 09:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, I'll respond there. Thanks.--Aschlafly 09:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

News articles to keep you going

  • "Remember the anti-war thugs who shouted down and taunted our troops as they headed off to war in Tacoma? Now, the city of Tacoma is billing the military to pay for the law enforcement costs of policing the peace mob" The aroma in Tacoma
  • These Liberal commencement speakers have no problem with their politically correct speech - here's some progressive views heard in America's colleges - "being 'tolerant' after September 11 isn't enough. Instead, Esteva said to embrace 'those who are radically different.' " Or try this one "America's mid-twentieth century initiation into world power was as much in the state of mortal sin as its birth in slavery had been." Here's the clincher "The inability to get health care because people lack insurance kills less traumatically and less visibly than terrorism, but the result is the same" Top 10 Liberal Commencement Speakers of 2006
  • The environmentalists only want to be an example for the rest of us "We're trying to set an example of maybe how Americans should behave and how our country should act, and how we as a nation should provide a role model for the rest of the world to use alternative fuels," Bradt said. Alaska to Tierra del Fuego on french fry grease
  • Psychologists and experts in animal behavior "point to several recent experiments suggesting that animals can visit the past and future as well" Time in the Animal Mind
  • These homosexual activists not only don't believe in free speech, they want to criminalize it "Patrick Harvie tried to get the Archbishop of Glasgow arrested for preaching that homosexuality is a sin". So Macho composer to fight gay campaigner

Enjoy Crocoitetalk 02:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

WOW!!! Great stuff! I'll post some tomorrow. I thought the best story concerned the police arresting the boy for calling another boy "gay", but the Daily Mail has deleted or moved that link. Maybe we can find it tomorrow. Cheers!--Aschlafly 02:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Try this [2]

The Bible thing is also in this months issue of TIME magazine, ALONG WITH an interview of our opponent wikpedia in which Cpedia gets a mention!..although its negative... --Wally 12:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

  • If it's a crime of "first-degree solicitation to commit manslaughter. State law allows for such a count when a viable fetus is the intended target", why isn't it against the law for late-term abortions?Teen Guilty of Seeking Hit on Ex's Fetus

Enjoy Crocoitetalk 23:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome, Crocoite! You're the best!!! I'll review.--Aschlafly 00:14, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The news never stops:

  • This is an insight into the athiests way of thinking "A new Canadian voice for reason, science and secularism." Unhealthy skepticism

Enjoy CrocoiteUser Talk:Crocoite 11:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

American History

Hi, Schlafly. I think that a priority of conservapedia should be cataloguing American history, particularly the nation's early history. I have tried to make a start by improving the presidential articles, but I will have to wait until I have more time to make real progress. I also think it would be great to elongate the founding fathers article. Is there any way to watch related articles to keep them safe from vandalism? At any rate, the site is doing great and keep up the good work!



Gotta do each article one at a time, and give each one your best. I'm working on the American Civil War, and due to length it's going to be six separate articles. It should give you some ideas as to what you want to do for other topics in American history. Karajou 16:13, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

sex-related banter

Did you actually read my post which was headed abstinence makes... etc.?

If you had you would have realised that I was making a serious point about the contraception article. OK the header was joke-y and punning, but was NOT offensive. I however, am offended by the accusation of being offensive.--CatWatcher 18:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, maybe you're "offended" by our rules. If so, then this is not the site for you. Our rules are enforced here. Keep it clean, without exception. Thanks.--Aschlafly 18:24, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Would you like to explain precisely which rule I am supposed to have broken?--CatWatcher 18:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Are you serious? We only have a handful of rules. They are not complicated. Rule 3: Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
If you don't agree, then this site is probably not for you. Simple enough? Please don't push me on this issue until it becomes necessary to block your account.--Aschlafly 18:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Then maybe it's time for me to chime in instead. Andy, they were talking about abstinence and contraceptions. Saying that that exchange was "sex-related banter" is really out of place. I can see where you're coming from, but I think you went a tad overboard in this case. --Sid 3050 18:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
It doesn't matter what they were talking about, and I didn't go overboard in issuing a warning. This site is not trying to be all things to all people. Some comments, while valid elsewhere, are a violation of our rules.
I'm not going to waste any more time on this issue here. You can have the last word if you like. But our rules are taken seriously, particularly on this issue.--Aschlafly 18:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
If couples either use contraceptive devices, or engage in abstinence from sexual intercourse, they wont reproduce. Families will not be created. Therefore, because they prevent families, they are not family-friendly. How does this not make sense? --Rustyjd07 22:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Rusty appears to be our friend Huey. I have blocked him. Geo.Talk 23:08, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you!!! You're the best, Geo.--Aschlafly 23:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Hello, just a note to call to your attention, when clicking on "random page", the inappropriate pages, although deleted, still appear. [3] --Taj 23:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, and I don't know what to do about that. Maybe we'll eventually delete them too, or tell students not to click on "Random Pages." Obviously as we grow the odds of getting one of those pages decreases.

Mr. Schlafly, I realize that you wish for this to be a family-friendly site, and despite my personal feelings on censorship and such, I respect your desire and to an extent agree with it. That said, there is no reason that material that you may consider to be inappropriate cannot be presented here in a responsible manner. Given the easy availability of sexual related material on the internet, and the fact that most of it is simply inappropriate for minors, I think it would be prudent to offer to people a means for information of a sexual nature that is decent and not inappropriate. A perfect example of this is PalMD's contraception entry. It plainly list the types of contraceptives without going into detail, it list important information about the reliability of each device, and in light of the views on this site, most importantly, it first says that abstinence is the only perfectly effective means of preventing pregnancy and STIs.

While I can see there not being a need for an entry on sexual intercourse or parts of the anatomy, many "sexual" topics are mentioned frequently on daytime tv and even in encyclopedias. I'm sure you would consider the World Book or Encyclopaedia Britannica to be family-friendly and they have articles (somewhat detailed and explicit) on sex.

I guess I'm trying to say that if I had a kid and he were to come across an entry on sex, I would prefer it be a responsible, mature (not in content :-p) article than some pornography or lewd description of sex. That said, I am not advocating making this site a sex manual or even including an entry on sex, just rethinking what is considered not family-friendly. Thanks. ColinRtalk 05:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Does what I said not even merit a response? ColinRtalk 16:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:BillG

I saw what Juanga wrote on my page, and I saw your response to it and I appreciate your input; I will try not to censor information, as you say, but I was simply trying to increase the standard of quality for articles on this site. The paragraph in question contained several spelling errors and a reference to President Bush being assassinated in office; I suggest you look at the edits Juanga has been making before you take his side against my efforts.

I will refrain from reverting the article (and others), which I personally think has been vandalized, until I hear your input.


No, my mistake, you're right. Please do revert vandalism. I've blocked Juanga after further examination of this.
Thanks and please continue as you were, although of course it is usually better to improve an edit rather than simply deleting it. Thanks again.--Aschlafly 10:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I saw that block and it seems you've made a mistake as Juanga's edits were pretty good for the most part. He/she revert edits BACK to your editions Andy; so if you're going to block for vandalism consider blocking yourself. Crackertalk
OK, Cracker, I've unblocked Juanga at your request. But why the sarcastic ending to your message? Please, be productive on this site. Note that here, unlike Wikipedia, we respect a person's talk page here as his castle. See Differences with Wikipedia. Thanks.--Aschlafly 11:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Favorable news articles on Conservapedia

Here is a favorable news article on Conservapedia:

Here is another favorable news article on Conservapedia:

Conservative 12:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Fantastic. Will post immediately. Thanks much!--Aschlafly 12:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

YET Another favorable news article that mentions Conservapedia

Here is another article that favorably mentions Conservapedia:

Conservative 12:58, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative are aware that this apparently is a copy of your first link in the other section, right? (And you hopefully are aware that any and all criticism of the "free, anybody-can-edit" wiki system also applies to Conservapedia, right?) --Sid 3050 13:04, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I doubt he gets it, reading comphrension isn't one of his strong suits. Complete 13:11, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
That review on Christianpost has a factual inaccuracy. "'Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America,' the front page of its website reads." Our front page doesn't say that. Myk 13:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
That article was written last month. It's just a theory, but I think that we may have changed the main page since. I don't know for sure, as I fail keep up with our main page. --<<-David R->> 14:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Since I've been here (around the Ides of March), there has been nothing saying this site favors Christianity and America. Only that we give credit to Christianity and America. Myk 14:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
This is the version that was up around the time they wrote that article. Read the third paragraph. --<<-David R->> 14:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I hate to note it, but those articles seem at best neutral; at worst, mocking.-AmesGyo! 00:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Sarcasm on the bias page

I wasn't clear if you were refering to my comments? They certainly weren't intended as sarcastic. Everwill 14:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, I'll take your word for it. I'm less familiar with your edits. But there are about 3-4 other accounts that will be blocked if they post one more instance of silly sarcasm.--Aschlafly 14:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I know I'll totally be the first to be blocked, but I ask again: What commandment do people break when they post an opinion on a Talk page and use sarcasm as a style choice? --Sid 3050 14:27, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Sid, you're wasting too much of my time. Check out the very first sentence of the first rule: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable."
No one is being blocked for intelligent or isolated sarcasm. But when the unintelligent pollution rises to an intolerable level, then a warning of blocking will occur and, if unheeded, blocking will result.--Aschlafly 14:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Sid, two points of advice: (1) Don't waste the boss's time with annoying trivia. (2) When trying to decide whether your latest clever remark would be improved with a dose of sarcasm, refer to rule #1. --Ed Poor 14:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, one of the site rules is to be concise. Your and Andy's comments can basically be summed up as "STFU" or with a reference to "Chilling Effect". I already got a warning for sarcasm (first sarcasm-warning I am aware of on this site, even!), and I still don't get what rule it breaks. I think the thing that "pollutes" this site is people with power making rules up on the fly. "You're not allowed to do this or that, check the rules!".
Look it up! Now, somebody's gonna say, I did look that up, and it's wrong. Well, Mister, that's 'cause you looked it up in a book! Next time, try looking it up--in your gut.
-Stephen Colbert
--Sid 3050 14:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT) (quite possibly for the last time at this rate)


How was user Second 2 able to vandalize the "God" article even though it was protected and has been protected since before today? Is this evidence of a security loophole? MountainDew 15:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Never mind, I figured it out. Whoever protected the article only set it on "block unregistered users", and not on "sysops only". MountainDew 15:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Um, no. It was specifically unprotected in that way. Read the log comment: "Unlocked to allow registered users to edit since several days have passed since vandalism. Hopefully this won't be temporary." --Sid 3050 15:43, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, more articles unlocked without notice to the locking Sysop, and since the Webmaster has already explained unregistered users can't edit anyway, it is only used to make it appear protected. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 00:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Dude, that happened WEEKS ago. Besides, the summary starts with the word "UNLOCKED". How does that make anything "appear protected"? And what's up with the "Sysop-TerryK" bit? People don't take you seriously, so you need to present your shiny badge anywhere you go? ;) --Sid 3050 07:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
  • No, actually, I saw another Sysop using it, thought it might be a good idea...especially for those radicals like yourself who chafe at any authority whatsoever. :p Keep making nasty, personal snipes, and I will remove you, or ask Andy to. He has warned you before, no? --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 15:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Ohhh, I quiver in fear, Mr. Sysop. And yes, I got several warnings already. I was the first (as far as I know) to be warned because of unauthorized use of sarcasm. Well, and then there are your warnings for stuff I didn't do. And Conservative's warning for removing creationist material that even Answers in Genesis had classified as wrong. So yeah, that's certainly an impressive history of totally lame warnings.
I'll tell you this as somebody who cares: Flashing your badge everywhere only makes you look silly. It won't make people respect you. Neither does your habit of shoving users and sysops arounds as you please. Same goes for accusing them of being liars or of doing stuff you only think they might have possibly done. Respect has to be earned.
I think quite a few people here respect me, especially for my input on the technical side of things and the occasional attempt of balancing an article by adding, removing or rewriting material. Sysops like Ed or Hoji are being respected for their edits, their attitude and their actions. You don't see either of them busting in with a "Listen to me! I'm a sysop, and I say!" attitude. People like Interiot or Dpbsmith might as well be sysops - people respect them and go all "Ohhhh, I see!" when they speak.
It's all about interaction. The people around you are not your underlings. Most of them are far ahead of you in terms of cooperation, ability to reason, respect, friendliness, or simply knowledge of the software that powers this site.
A sysop's role is not that of a nightclub bouncer. A sysop is the personification of a certain standard others can follow. It's somebody who others can have faith in. The standards you set and the lack of basic knowledge you so openly show undermines your reputation. A tag reading "I'm a sysop!" won't fix that. On the contrary.
I'm one (of the few here?) who won't look the other way while you continue your abuse/insult/accusation spree. And I'm hoping against all hope that you actually consider my points instead of mentally summing it up as "You suck!" or something like that. If you want to ban me for this, please give me a heads-up so I can adjust my User page accordingly, otherwise I'd have to go through the trouble of creating a sock to do the job. I honestly don't care enough about this place to suddenly smile and nod at things I consider to be abuse. If the choice is between being banned and doing nothing while you continue your abuse spree, I will choose the ban. --Sid 3050 16:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Barack Obama

TK keeps locking the Obama article to prevent editing by any but sysops, despite it being unlocked by CPAdmin1, requests for unlocking by other users, and no valid reason to lock the article. Thus, I unlocked the article to all registered users, it's just doing so says the article is still protected (thanks to weird semantics). Nevertheless, the article is (to my knowledge) currently set so any registered user can edit and should remain that way until vandalism of the article becomes a problem. We don't lock an article on the basis of one instance of vandalism, so why should we do so for the Obama article? ColinRtalk 18:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, it appears that TK unlocked the article at the same time I changed the permissions (unbeknownst to me), only he completely unlocked it while I just unlocked it to registered users, thus making it appear I locked it when calling for it to be unlocked. I can see now where there would be some confusion to my change in protection level. ColinRtalk 18:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Per the template, revised and agreed to by Ed Poor and I, attached to the article: "Sysops do not unlock without contacting the locking Sysop". So, it was wrong of me to expect cooperation and contact? I don't think I have ever refused to unlock a protected article when asked. So, Colin, what you are wanting here is a modern day version of the Old West, like what you complain about Sysop Conservative does, where all Sysops are independent Sheriffs, never acting in concert, and always exercising independent judgement, undoing each others blocks and locks? I though paramount to all Conservative values was respect for the individual? --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The irony is that this exact thing caused confusion right above this section. *points up* For clarification:

  1. "Protected" + "[edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]" = registered users can edit
  2. "Protected" + "[edit=sysop:move=sysop]" = Sysops only
Hope that helps for future reference. --Sid 3050 18:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Another "irony" is that people are still posting here contrary to the BIG RED NOTICE at the top of this page! --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 06:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

How to handle unsourced claims?

There appear to be two approaches to handling of unsourced claims. The first is to use the {{fact}} template to designate something that needs a sourcing but letting it stand while notfying others that this material is without backup. The other is to go through and delete the material outright without giving anyone a chance to find the sources for it. Which is the appropriate path to take for unsourced claims? --Mtur 19:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it depends on the likely truth or falsity of the statement. If likely true, then designating a need for sourcing makes sense. If likely false, then deletion is appropriate. But don't let political bias distort this decision.
The liberal bias on Wikipedia is illustrated by its constant deletion of facts contrary to the liberal view, and such deletions are not allowed here.--Aschlafly 23:10, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
If we can encourage a new editor to get in the habit of citing sources, they'll soon see it strengthens their credibilty. RobS 23:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree with RobS, indoctrination from the beginning is probably the best route. Perhaps I can tackle the challenge of creating a "new users manual", describing markup, etiquette, policies, etc. --Hojimachongtalk 23:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Right. It's not a matter of challenging or intimidating a new editor, is convincing him how he can add strength and weight to his arguments. RobS 00:03, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
  • And it is a matter of knowing, in your gut, if they are here to help or destroy. ;-) --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 07:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Possible Embarrassment

After all of the incredibly silly debate over the Vagina page, it's ended up being fifth on this site's list of most viewed pages. Frankly, that's an embarrassment and could be used against Conservapedia. Do you think it should maybe just be deleted for good? MountainDew 00:08, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The IRC users, some of them Sysops, or former ones, helped make it so, linking to it from other places. Pure manipulation of Google, just like the "miserable failure" deal....--~ TK MyTalk 00:12, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
It's bizarre. It's fine with me if you delete that page, MountainDew. I've been thinking about doing the same thing.--Aschlafly 00:17, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Don't forget that a well-written article could draw much-needed traffic to the site (via liberal blogs and such). It worked with Dinosaur. --Hojimachongtalk 00:20, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Delete it, absolutely. There's no reason for an encyclopedia to have any listing for potentially embarassing and EVIL human body parts. I suggest we delete ALL anatomy pages, just to be safe. Suppose a foot fetishist were to visit the site? --BDobbs 00:21, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Satire isn't appreciated regarding serious matters, BDobbs. --Hojimachongtalk 00:21, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Then I'll refrain from doing so on serious topics. But this is laughable. Unless you think God decided to build booby-traps into the human body? (Whoops. Betcha that gets me suspended again for 'obscenity'...) --BDobbs 00:25, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
And serious matters are the ones that NEED satire the most. Taking things to seriously is bad for your mental health--it leads to hardening of the orthodoxies and truth decay. --BDobbs 00:25, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
BDobbs, Did Adam have a navel? RobS 00:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

BDobbs, you're obviously not here to seriously contribute. MountainDew 00:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

What makes you say that? I'm just looking for an article which I a: know something about and b: won't instantly get my work edited out of existence by someone with a bigger axe to grind. --BDobbs 00:33, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
And I happen to think the terrible fear so many Christians seem to have of their own genitalia is a VERY serious matter, considering how it's warped our society. --BDobbs 00:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll block BDobbs if no one else beats me to it. I took a look at his contributions and concluded that he fails the 90% talk, 10% quality edits test. See rules. Also, polluting one's talk page (mine in this case) is an additional reason to block. See Differences with Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 00:37, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

When ever I see this new line "obviously your not here to seriously contribute" I keep hearing McCarthy say: ""Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?" 00:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
BDobbs is blocked for a week. Now we can go back to building the encyclopedia. By the way, TK had previously blocked him for 3 days.--Aschlafly 00:37, 12 April 2007 (EDT)