User talk:Aschlafly/Archive14

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Martin Luther King

Since King is definitely one of America's greats, I think it's appropriate that we have a page for his I Have a Dream speech, with a link to a video from it. We will have to expand his article as well in the near future. Karajou 23:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Sounds good to me, though don't be surprised if some add negative information about Vietnam.--Aschlafly 23:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I also wouldn't be surprised if somebody adds that he's been involved with the Communist Party or that he cheated on his wife. It's an article to watch. These are both true, but I don't think they need to dominate the discussion because that's not what King is notable for. MountainDew 23:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It appears that I Have a Dream may be a copyright violation, and break rule 1. Please respond at Talk:I Have a Dream. --Scott 11:23, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Deleted. [1] --Ed Poor 11:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I think the copyright to the speech is contested. The approach of linking to an official site should work for us. It's a shame, really, when copyright interferes with educational dissemination of a work. This is an example of why I prefer relinquishing copyrights. In fact, I'm going to update our draft copyright now.--Aschlafly 11:36, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't know if the speech is copyrighted, as it was spoken in public, but I'm going to support the deletion of the speech from Conservapedia until the copyright question is clear. Not willing to take legal chances here! Karajou 12:36, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I did go to the link as mentioned by user:Scott, and this is what is there:

  • The documents, recordings, photographs and other materials on this website are protected by copyright and unauthorized use of these materials may violate copyright law.
  • The Institute cannot give permission to use or reproduce any of the writings, statements, or images of Martin Luther King, Jr. Please do not contact us for this purpose.
  • Inquiries regarding the use or reproduction King's writings or statements should be directed to the manager of the Estate of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. :
  • Intellectual Properties Management
  • One Freedom Plaza
  • 449 Auburn Avenue NE
  • Atlanta, GA 30312
  • Fax: 404-526-8969

So, it is a fact that King's "I Have A Dream" speech is copyrighted, and permission to use must be granted. Karajou 12:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

...don't tell me that's news to you guys. This stuff was even discussed on BoingBoing: Link 1, Link 2. Also make sure you follow the referenced links for the full story. --Sid 3050 12:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
"This kind of control over parts of our history hardly "promotes progress," and it would be folly to claim that it was the incentives of copyright protection that motivated Dr. King to speak. (Incidentally, there have been several fights over whether the speech is copyrighted at all, having been published (spoken) without a registration at a time when registration was required.)"
"Joseph Beck, an attorney for the King family and an expert in intellectual property rights, said, "The King family has always supported providing access to the speech and to the video for educational purchases and encourages interested persons to contact the King Center in Atlanta." According to the family's Web site, videotapes and audiotapes of the speech can be purchased for $10, but one copy often is not enough for an entire school, and many schools don't know what materials are available.
Many schools use the text -- often taken in violation of the copyright from the Internet. The King family, however, wants teachers to use the speech and has not pursued legal action against educators, Carson said."[2] --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 20:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
That does not alter the fact that the text is copyrighted and the copyright holder does not want it in the public domain. --Mtur 20:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Interesting one would seem eager to point that out, to the deleterious affect on academic freedom and learning. If the King family wants to profit from the works of the Reverand, perhaps the National Holiday should be withdrawn as well....using his name and likeness, as it is, without payment. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 21:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
One of my hobbies is that of photography and I am very concerned about copyright. I may not agree with all of them, but I recognize that copyright is the way that I protect my intellectual property and that if I do not act to help preserve the copyright of others then I am in danger of loosing my own and at best am a hypocrite. I will never say "You can't copy my photos, but I'll copy your text when it is convent to me." And thus, I am compelled to argue for the copyright holder in this case whatever I may feel about the issue at hand. The material is under copyright - that is all that need be said. If you want to write about the copyright debate as Wikipedia has[3] then go ahead. --Mtur 21:10, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I am not disagreeing, merely making the observation that without the National Holiday and taxpayer monies for monuments, the King family wouldn't have near the income stream it now it has elevated him to a higher place than without those. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 21:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Sock Ring

There was a recent rash of accounts with obscene references to you in the usernames, which is why you might be interested. I ran Checkuser to find any other nasty surprises and found that OliverQ is responsible. There were some none obscene accounts which i have blocked. To confirm, run OliverQ through Checkuser and click edits for the IP. Geo.Talk 00:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, Geo, amazing catch! I went through Checkuser and verified everything.
This came from the ISP of Softlayer Technologies in Dallas, and I'm going to report this obscenity and vandalism immediately. I've dealt with it before and have its abuse reporting procedures. Thanks.--Aschlafly 00:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, the full IP address and record of abuse has been reported to the appropriate ISP with a demand that it take action against the account. That was easy with your insight, Geo! Thanks again.--Aschlafly 00:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for putting up Augustus!

I meant to thank you, but was blocked for a day, then forgot. Thanks though! Cheers.-AmesGyo! 00:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal bias

Andy, The article Liberal bias desperately needs a definition/description of what liberal bias is. The article is currently failing to live up to the high standards set out in the Conservapedia:Commandments. You seem to be knowledgeable on the subject, perhaps you could oblige? WhatIsG0ing0n 06:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

An Australian agnostic's defence of Christianity

Andy (and others), I'm sure that you'll enjoy reading this newspaper column (unless you are an atheist of course). You might even find something useful there for the main page. It would even be worth watching this columnist for further useful information (he writes every Wednesday and Friday). Philip J. Rayment 06:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the superb suggestion. I've added it to the main page.--Aschlafly 10:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
This is one of the best columns I have read in a long time. And everything in it is true. --Hojimachongtalk 21:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the feedback, Hoji! I'll put the link back on the front page based on your comments.--Aschlafly 21:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Documenting liberal bias

At some point can the usage of politically correct terminology as documented by "oriental/chinaman" be added to the list of examples of Wikipedia's liberal bias? Everwill 07:29, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill, I've seen your comments on this, and they are interesting. But I have to think about this further. It seems to me that "chinaman" may be considered offensive by some and that Wikipedia may be right to recognize that.--Aschlafly 11:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Everwill's overall point is still valid, but "Chinaman" is the "exception that 'proves the rule", so to speak. Somehow the American concept of the 1880s stereotypical Chinese man involves a funny cap, clothing that looks like pajamas and a long ponytail. (That's my image anyway - no offense meant.) The word "Chinese" conjures up a more sophisticated picture.
We need an article on Political correctness to deal with connotations <-- note red link. Word choices matter. Would you rather have a segment of muscle tissue from an immature castrated bull, or a nice thick juicy steak? --Ed Poor 11:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop promotion

Andy (and others): Imagine my surprise when I logged on to Conservapedia this morning and saw the extra "protect/unprotect" and "delete" tabs appropriate to a Sysop. I also found myself listed in the page Special:Listadmins. Yet I received no e-mail notice about this.

Before I presume to exercise the functions of a Sysop, I need to ask for the record:

  1. Have you, indeed, promoted me?
  2. To what do I owe this singular honor?
  3. Have you any "Bureaucratic" advice for me in the proper exercise of my new role?

Thanks in advance.--TerryHTalk 09:03, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

TerryH, your promotion is well-deserved. I'm not sure who promoted you, but a quick review of your many high-quality edits shows it was the right decision! I posted a welcome on your talk page with some tips and pointers. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Here are the last eleven promotions:
Looks like it was User:CPWebmaster who did the honors. --Ed Poor 10:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll have my acceptance notice up on my User Page very soon. Thank you very much!--TerryHTalk 11:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Think tank

This notice gave me food for thought:

A blog wants Conservapedia to address the "roadless" environmental controversy in Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska on the Canadian border.

I wonder, is Conservapedia on the 'road' to becoming a think tank? If so, it would be the first wiki-based think tank. --Ed Poor 10:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, that's a fascinating suggestion, and I think the the answer is "yes"! This project has always been a more intellectual and educational effort than Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 10:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Our Copyright Policy

I've posted it here and welcome comments.--Aschlafly 11:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Just on the broader point of comparing it to Wikipedia's license... Differences with Wikipedia and Wikipedia copyright both currently say that contributing material to Wikipedia prevents the author from re-using their work elsewhere. This is manifestly untrue. By U.S. law, authors automatically own the copyright to their work, and the GFDL has no clauses that reassign copyright ownership to anyone else.    If I write a poem all by myself, license it under the GFDL, and post it to Geocities, then I still own the copyright. The same holds for Wikipedia.     Wikipedia authors can and do multiply-license their works under other licenses in addition to the GFDL, which can include licenses that are more restrictive than the GFDL. --Interiot 13:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I will respond on the talk page.--Aschlafly 14:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Notice by wjcook

Hi Mr. Schlafly, I work for Accuracy in Media and would like to feature Conservapedia in an article and have a few questions for you. Please email me at: Look forward to hearing from you!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by wjcook (talk)

Thanks, I emailed you.--Aschlafly 13:40, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

American Civil War: 1861

This article is done, not including minor tweaking. There is also some guidlines I included in the American Civil War talk page as to how new material is to be added, and it's relevent for remaining articles on the subject. Now for 1862. Karajou 15:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

This is fantastic!!!--Aschlafly 18:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Glad you like it. But it is coming out a little slower than I would like; I get sidetracked sometimes! Karajou 18:40, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Established Hangout Place for Sysops

This is a hangout place for Conservapedia:Sysops to discuss strategy and anything else of interest.--Aschlafly 18:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I hate to ask this, but...shouldn't that hangout place be protected? Ought non-administrative users be permitted to edit it?--TerryHTalk 08:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't see why it shouldn't be protected. There's probably no reason not to have the main page protected and the talk page unprotected. Philip J. Rayment 09:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Approved translations?

I see in some spots the New Living Translation being used. In others its the King James Version. I realize that everyone has their own favorite translation, but there is some odd wording in some older versions that has since had the meaning change to a more modern version. Additionally, there are instances where there were mistranslations, exclusions or inclusions in a translation itself. Is there one version that should be the quoted version for Conservapedia? Or a mismash? I am concerned that there could be edit wars between two different translations of the same text that say slightly different things. Additionally, one should take care to make certain that the quotation used is in accordance with the licensing for that version. --Mtur 19:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

The KJV is not copyrighted at all in this country, so we're free to use the text. Bible translations published recently may be copyrighted; the New American Standard is one, and it is copyrighted by the Lockman Foundation. Check the title page and look at the last copyright date, and whether the text of the Bible is not copyrighted vs. everything else. I have Thompson's Chain Reference KJV; the Bible text may not be copyrighted, but the additional Thompson material is. Karajou 19:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Regarding the NASB:
The text of the New American Standard Bible® may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of The Lockman Foundation, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for more than 25% of the total work in which they are quoted.[4]
So, if the article that has it is more than 25% quote, permission isn't automatically given. Furthemore, there are requirements to linking. --Mtur 19:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
The NIV has similar copyright provisions. In normal circumstances, there should be no copyright issues with quoting from those translations, and similar probably applies with most other modern translations. Philip J. Rayment 22:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, normal copying would comply with the restrictions of these Bibles. 500 verses is a huge amount of material and we would have no reason to copy that much anyway.
Feel free to add the New American Standard translation to the different versions of Jesus' last words, as set forth in Good Friday.--Aschlafly 22:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't personally have New American Standard as either of my personal Bibles (I have a full NIV and an NKJV New Testament). If this is the standard for this site, I suppose it may be available online? MountainDew 22:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I think all the versions are available at Crosswalk. I don't know that much about all the different standards, and need to improve the entry I started here at Bible translations. We don't have a standard version for this site.--Aschlafly 23:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
If you need more, try going to here [5]. E-Sword is a fine program, totally free, and has many translations available (the few copyrighted add-ons you pay for). I also put a short article on it here: E-Sword. Karajou 00:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Wow, very nice entry, Karajou. I'd love to explore issues of biblical translations are part of this Conservapedia project. There is so much to learn by analyzing translations, and this Wiki approach facilitates such productive discussions.--Aschlafly 00:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Rick Meyers, the man who created E-Sword, lives about thirty miles from me in Franklin, Tennessee, and I have talked with him. For a computer study Bible, he's done an outstanding job in making it. Karajou 00:15, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


Just so you are not caught unaware, I have posted on the Talk:James Maxwell page. I would have responded sooner but, as you are aware, Conservative blocked me for reasons that have never been fully explained. --Horace 20:52, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, thanks. I'll check it out. I should have marked the page as "watched".--Aschlafly 22:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

RMS Titanic (and then on to the logo)

Since there is a certain anniversary coming up in a few days, and you don't have a certain article here, I thought I'd add it. This is also going to be heavily edited shortly, so I purposely left it scant. But not really that scant! Karajou 23:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed - April 15th. That would be great to have an entry on the Titanic for our "on this day" feature. By the way, Karajou, please feel free to insert your own entries for "on this day" on our front page. I only do that feature when no one else has beaten me to it. It is a great way to add new entries and learn about a wide variety of subject areas at the same time.--Aschlafly 00:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
This place is simply getting better every day. Karajou 00:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Income Tax deadline day (well the traditional day, I think it is the 16th this year), occurring on the anniversary of the Titanic appropriate! --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 00:16, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

You're talking about the American income tax deadline, I take it? Philip J. Rayment 00:18, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
You're sharp, Philip, and exactly right. We need to more solicitous of our international audience. I almost posted an "on this day" about the notorious John Stonehouse for our British friends, but thought that might be a bit much. (He faked his death in Miami, then moved to Australia, then returned to Britain as a Labour Party leader before going to jail!)--Aschlafly 00:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm pleased that you see it that way! So what can we do about the blatant Americanism of the logo? Philip J. Rayment 00:40, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Stonehouse was a Labour party minister before he faked his own death, but on hiis return to Parliament after his Australian holiday he sat as an MP for the minuscule fringe English National Party, not Labour.

Everything is up for grabs here, Philip! That logo is only temporary. Perhaps an Aussie flag? By the way, an Australian radio station is going to have me on the air a week after Easter. Stirling Addison on . For all I know the show may want to try to mock me, but here in the U.S. we have a saying that all publicity is good publicity. Your leading newsmagazine was supposed to run a story about Conservapedia also, but I'm not sure it has yet. I gave it a very lengthy interview about two weeks ago.--Aschlafly 00:45, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll all but guarantee that Triple J will mock Conservapedia, as well as you. The station was mentioned in that newspaper column I linked to (that you posted on the main page). As for the particular program that you will be appearing on and the character hosting it, if you don't want to go in blind, you must read this, despite it being on Wikipedia. You have been warned. Philip J. Rayment 02:27, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What can be done? Teach you English to spell?  :p --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 00:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Phillip, your jolly well right mate. The Conservapedia logo has to go. I suggest a logo such as this: Conservative 01:01, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

LOL! How about this, as a compromise? --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 01:15, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Ha! I read on Wikipedia some time ago (and I'm not having a go at Wikipedia here), that the definition for being a member of the Commonwealth of Nations (formerly British Commonwealth) is so broad that, if taken literally, would allow almost any country in the world to be a member, including the U.S. of A. Philip J. Rayment 02:27, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm absolutely gobsmacked at that! --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 03:45, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Well of course the US could be a member. It's a former colony. --Horace 08:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Precisely. Philip J. Rayment 10:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

All right, everybody. I understand that we don't want the US flag, or the flag of any one nation-state, as our logo. That troubles me myself. Though I am an American, I don't want to see Conservapedia limit its scope in fact or even by appearance.

Why not a person's face for our logo, instead of a national flag? I suggest a portrait of Aristotle, or Plato. Part of this goes to the heart of what being a "conservative" means, and what exactly we're trying to "conserve." I'd say that it was the good and inspiring parts of the civilization from which most of our philosophical and political positions descend. (I say most, because our enduring metaphysical and religious traditions descend from Middle Eastern thought.)

Someone here has already suggested that we are a think tank, far more so than is Wikipedia. Then we ought to think about where our mode of thinking comes from, and promote it actively. And that includes promoting the "classical canon," and much else about classical (that is to say, Greco-Roman) civilization.

Did any of you know that about seventy percent of the words in the English language derive from Latin or Greek? And that some of them derive from Greek through Latin? Surely the language that informs most of our words is the language of the kind of source that truly represents us. Which is why I argue for a Greek philosopher, either Aristotle, Plato, or perhaps both, side-by-side, for our logo.--TerryHTalk 08:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Are you sure taking inspiration from pagan civilsations is compatible with our Christian ethos?
WhatIsG0ing0n 08:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
If that were as problematic as you seem to suppose, then we oughtn't to have a Congress with a Senate, which after all is modeled after the Senate of Rome. Nor a House of Representatives, which is modeled after the Assembly of Five Hundred in ancient Athens.--TerryHTalk 08:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia Rules

It occurs to me that, arising out of our James Maxwell discussion, it would be appropriate to include in the Conservapedia Rules a relevance requirement. I am aware that you and I appear to have a different view of relevance in relation to that particular article but, nonetheless I am sure that we would both agree that all edits should, at the very least, be relevant to the article at hand. It's just not enough to require that a particular fact be true. In a sense a relevance is akin to the anti-gossip requirement.

What are your thoughts? --Horace 03:21, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Horace, this comment applies here and to your suggestions below.
God's Commandments numbered only ten, and they were brief. We should have fewer than that. "Relevance" is not like our rule against gossip at all, and I don't think we need a rule against irrelevance. I haven't seem a pattern of people inserting irrelevant things into articles. Maxwell's views on science are highly relevant. I haven't seen this issue raised in another other context, so a rule on this would be, shall we say, irrelevant?  :-) --Aschlafly 10:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I've always thought that governments of all flavours go overboard with rules, compared to God's ten (although keep in mind that in addition to the ten, there were all the other ones that are detailed in Leviticus, etc.), but then we are not as clever as God at being able to condense them down so well, are we?
I do hope we avoid getting too legalistic, with precise rules for this and that. And some of Horace's proposed rules seem to be stating the obvious. Surely we don't need a rule that people are not allowed to vandalise; doesn't that go without saying?
On the other hand, rules or guidelines can be very useful for allowing people to know just what is expected of them. A rule (or guideline) on reversions might be a good idea. I think that Wikipedia's three-revert rule is actually pretty sensible, and don't like Horace's proposal below. If an editor reverts my edits, I don't have a problem with reverting them back if I think I have a good reason that he hasn't considered, and I explain why. See here for an example where I did just that. In that case I explained it on the talk page (after I did the revert), and in other cases I've explained it in the edit comment. If the other editor believes that my reasons are not good enough and reverts it back again, I will discuss it before I revert it again.
I also disagree with Horace's proposal regarding sysops providing reasons for blocking editors. Actually, I agree in principle, but not with the way he's worded it. It should be a requirement that the blocking sysop gives a reason, but I don't think that he should be required to go to too much trouble in doing that in the first instance. I know on Wikipedia the sysops there (and I'm not one there) have said that they spend so much time blocking etc. that they haven't got time to write explanations all the time. So I think a sensible solution would be to prove a reason, but not necessarily a "sufficient description of the reason for blocking to allow the editor to fully understand your reason". That can be provided later on request.
Philip J. Rayment 11:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Sometimes people will not accept a given reason, and refuse to try to understand it. I agree with most of what Phillip says, reasons for blocking are always given in the reason box already. I think most of us recognize a revert or block done in bad faith already. In the end, anything done by Sysops that Bureaucrats disagree with, will be reversed. --~ TK MyTalk 17:25, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I included that particular rule because when Conservative blocked me the reason he gave was ambiguous. To this day I don't know which edit of mine enraged him so. How am I supposed to learn from my mistakes? (assuming of course that I made a mistake (which is not admitted but is specifically denied)). --Horace 17:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
There will always be a tension between those in authority and those below them, as long as they do not share a common purpose. I seek out just the opposite sort of relationship.
I try to find Someone Whose vision encompasses and transcends mine, Whom I'm happy to follow, and to Whom I can say, "I am Yours to command." --Ed Poor 18:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I totally understand. But to make rules because of his actions, which I have already stated I disagree with, is to go nowhere quick. I suggest you make the discussion on either of these pages. [[6]] or [[7]]--~ TK MyTalk 19:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Proposed Conservapedia Editor Rules

In light of my recent experiences I have created some draft rules for editors and sysops. They are fairly simple and I have, no doubt, left out a number of things. I have come to the conclusion that some rules are required because I have noticed that different sysops will block editors for different reasons. Also a lot of conflict appears to arise as a result of a lack of clear guidelines. This makes the system somewhat arbitrary and potentially unfair. I have tried to keep the rules simple and uncontroversial. You will note that a number of rules already appear on the Commandment page. I included them here because I thought that they were better suited to being a part of these rules than the Commandment page. I would be delighted if you would indicate your views.

Rules for account creation

1. You may not create an account name that is offensive.

2. You may not create a sockpuppet account

Rules for all editors

1. Do not vandalise any page or include any obscenity on any page.

2. Do not enter into edit wars. If an editor has reverted an edit of yours, do not immediately reinstate the edit. Use the talk page. If the dispute cannot be settled between you and the other editor then apply to a sysop for guidance. If one or both of you are sysops apply to a bureaucrat sysop for guidance.

3. If a dispute over one of your edits (or reversions) arises do not ignore attempts to discuss the matter. Use the talk page in a constructive manner. Try to reach an agreed position. Remember that the article should comply with all of the Conservapedia Commandments.

Rules for Sysop editors

1. You may block an editor for a breach of these rules or the Conservapedia Commandments but not otherwise.

2. If you block an editor you must provide sufficient description of the reason for blocking to allow the editor to fully understand your reason. If this necessitates an email to the editor or a post on the editor’s page then so be it.

3. Do not protect pages in order to promote your own edits over those of other editors.

--Horace 04:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

  • These do not belong on Andy's page, but rather the discussion page on policy, IMO. Does everyone think Andy never reads in other areas? --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 06:02, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Horace is "The Truth" on my userpage applicable here? Everwill 09:43, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it is (if I understand you correctly). We are not here to promote our own world views. We are here to construct articles which accurately reflect the (good quality) scholarship that is out there in the world. With that in mind it should be possible to successfully co-operate on an article even where editors have different personal views on the content. --Horace 09:52, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
But you articulate it so much better than I. --Horace 10:00, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Your email is not working

I have sent a number of emails to you through the Conservapedia email system without any response. Certainly at least half a dozen. The last one was as follows:

I refer to my previous x emails (where x is a number greater than three).
I note that I have not received a response to any of the abovementioned emails.
I hereby request to be made a bureaucrat sysop (seems to me I might as well shoot for the stars as I am getting absolutely no response anyway). I warn you that if you do not respond on this occasion my next request will be to be made King-Emperor.

Yours in a state of eager anticipation


You should probably get that fixed as soon as possible. I imagine that there are probably other people who may also wish to contact you. --Horace 17:19, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually we don't have a God-king here at Conservapedia (we do, but the job's been taken); so refering to Andy as the Man-king is really more appropriate. RobS 17:45, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What's happening???

At the top of this page is a red box in which you state that complaints about editors and sysops should be posted on two particular pages created specifically for the purpose. The sysop abuse page is fully taken up with complaints about ONE SINGLE sysop. And yet he remains a sysop. I haven't even seen a warning issued. What's happening? Have you read the page at all? Was the page just a joke played on editors? Do you have any intention of running this place in a fair and just manner? --Horace 18:04, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, to be fair, the same was happening here, too. Complaining about sysop abuse = exercise in futility most of the time. --Sid 3050 18:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
  • There seems to be some confusion as to how Conservapedia handles such things. At the risk of being redundant, this is not some other Wiki, and we do not follow many Wiki ways. Why is it that some of you insist upon that, when whatever is not in place now, was not in place when you joined here? --~ TK MyTalk 19:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I think it's because some people here believe that sysops should be held responsible for their actions instead of being protected no matter what they do. I know, it's a very weird concept. ;) --Sid 3050 19:25, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, it is a weird concept, given that it is a private site. It is actually a socialistic thought. The facts say people come here of their own free will. What rules there were, or are now, haven't changed since people came here. I am not being glib, but I really don't understand this Net concept of "joint ownership" or its origins. The premise here is a Conservative encyclopedia, and people contributing, unpaid, of their own free will. How does that impart some control or say over the place? --~ TK MyTalk 19:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
    • I think (just think, not putting words in Horace's mouth) that he was trying to say that there is obviously a problem with the way things are being handled, and running to Andy whenever a little problem pops up is not a good way of doing things. Considering that many editors (liberal and conservative) have expressed their views about Conservative, and his unwillingness to communicate, protections due to ideological reasons, etc., it would be in the best interest of Andy to look at the problem and make a decision. Being conservative to the point of unilateralism will only undermine the goals of Conservapedia. But don't quote me on this ;-). --Hojimachongtalk 19:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
(Replying to TK - it's hard to properly adjust indent levels when bullet-point lists are involved)
Again, I don't "want control", but it would be nice if sysops were held responsible for their actions. I'm not basing this on any legal ground here. I couldn't sue for it. Andy could simply ban everybody and replace all pages with "ANDY IS THE BEST!" - it's his right since he owns the place.
However, wikis are based on communities. Like you said: People contribute to it without being paid in any form. Turning this around: Nobody has the duty to be here. People stay as long as they feel welcome. And the more it becomes obvious that Andy effectively encourages sysop abuse (both by cheering the accused people on and by ignoring complaints), the less people feel welcome. The atmosphere is completely hostile for anybody who happens not to share the views of the most prominent sysops.
Bottom line is: Many good people left, many good people will leave (or simply don't contribute to articles), very few good people join. What does this lead to? A wiki that effectively froze in its growth phase. Lots of people joined and left again because they realized that this is not a good place to be at.
So sure, Andy owns the place. But at the current rate, he will own a wiki with a few dozen contributors and a few vandals per day. In order to become attractive to outsiders, this site should show that it cares about its regular contributors as much as it cares about its sysops. --Sid 3050 19:47, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
  • "Shrugs" Well, that is almost a truism, Hoji. But the difference between the ideal, and what we have, is the difference between life on this planet, and Heaven, eh? When your tactics don't work, one either quits the race/war/game and concedes, or one changes tactics. Failing that, my gut tells me if the issue was not "Conservative" it would be something/someone else, and that some people here seem to need the constant tension, or want it. What I see here is a group of people wanting absolutely no communication, other than pseudo intellectual discourse on the talk pages here, and nowhere else. With your notable exception, Hoji, and that of Mountain Dew, Ed Poor and Andy.--~ TK MyTalk 20:01, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Folks, this is an educational project, not a place to bicker and argue. Horace, I've reviewed your edits and found that they are, what, about 90% talk and complaints and less than 10% substantive edits??? More to say but I have run an errand now. Will be back on a bit later.--Aschlafly 20:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
My guess is that Horace would like to do more editing of articles, but the articles he's interested in are locked. So his only recourse (and mine) is to contribute to talk pages, in hopes that a sysop with privledges and common sense will listen. Jrssr5 21:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Not to pick on Horace, but I think the vast majority of his edits have been on one topic: evolution. He has reverted my completely factual statement about Maxwell and evolution not once, not twice, but three times. I've explained to all that this is not Wikipedia. We have open minds here and go where the facts take us. If censorship of all criticism of evolution is what someone seeks, then Wikipedia is a better place for that person. We are not going to spend all our time on that issue, and we are not going to censor factual criticism of theories here. Tonight I'm going to work on the Theory of Relativity entry and that entry will allow well-supported criticism also. Thank you.--Aschlafly 22:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
You did say a lot there, Andy, but you didn't answer the question or address the problem raised. I thought Theory of Evolution was on hold until the student panel rendered a decision.Myk 22:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
1. I can't believe you reverted the Maxwell edit again. Did you read the article I referred to on the talk page? Even the reference you added is, on its face, nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution. Words fail me.
2. I don't know if I can be any clearer. No, I have never advocated that there should be censorship of all criticism of evolution. Has anyone? Anyone at all?
3. The reason I have contributed more to the talk pages is because I am extremely frustrated by the locking of pages that I have an interest in and the bullying behaviour of a certain sysop. I would much rather spend my time contributing to articles. However, as things stand I think that the best contribution I can make to this place is to point out the enourmous problems caused by the lack of respect paid to a number of editors. I will continue to do so because it is my firm belief that until that situation is remedied this site will be second rate.
4. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT CONSERVATIVE? --Horace 22:35, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, Jessr, Sid and Horace and Myk, that isn't an option, is it? Say I open it. Conservative locks it. Ad infinitum. Posts on the talk page are not doing any good, and no one will paste them to the article, it seems, because they are considered off-policy by the blocking Sysop. I feel bad that there just isn't another topic, in the tens of thousands needed here that interest you. What I have learned in life is that so long as their is confrontation, and people have their back up, and one side feels they are backed against a wall, compromise and understanding are hard to come by. --~ TK MyTalk 22:37, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
My $0.02... if we aren't even going to explain what we are criticizing, what is the point of putting the criticism there? What's on that page right now all belongs at Criticism of the Theory of Evolution. We should strive to be different from Wikipedia, but at the end of the day we still are an encyclopedia, and need to put some factual statements about evolution (like the overwhelming science that supports it) into the article; I don't see why this is such a big issue, given the whole anti-censorship-of-facts attitude here. --Hojimachongtalk 22:40, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
You raise a few good points there, TK. I think I addressed the basic issue in... uh... Talk:Homosexuality#Spelling/Grammar.
This isn't about this one article. It's about the mindset. You said it yourself: Somebody opens it, Conservative will lock and revert. Rinse, repeat. The issue here is the "I own this article, and I got the power to enforce my wish" attitude. This attitude was induced by the higher-ups (they gave Conservative his power so he could edit a locked article), but I doubt that they had intended things to go this wrong.
You also made another good point: "they are considered off-policy by the blocking Sysop" This goes just to the whole "We need a few clear rules; otherwise, sysops will make case-by-case policies based on their views alone" thing I told you about. You basically predicted a sysop war right here. One sysop considers something off-policy, but another one may not. Who is right? The answer is: Both and neither, since there is no policy that says what is right or wrong. The result will either be two sysops coming right here to bicker, or one sysop simply giving up in frustration. Either case is dumb. The direction of the site should not be determined by whoever happens to be more stubborn.
That's also why we are not simply looking away. Heck, I'm not even interested (or knowledgeable) in the Theory of Evolution. But if this mindset is effectively being encouraged like it is now, any article may become the next Theory of Evolution (or Homosexuality or whatever the currently owned article is). And the longer he gets away with it, the more sysops will be tempted to do exactly the same: Claim an article and own it, regardless of previous contributors. --Sid 3050 23:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I just want to know why over 190 edits (and I don't think I even need to mention who made most of them) have been made to the Theory of Evolution article since it was supposed to be "frozen" until the Panel could make a decision. ColinRtalk 23:16, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree. The policy should apply to everybody. MountainDew 23:21, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is only one of many interesting topics on Conservapedia. I can't spend all my time on this issue. Equally important are the front page (which I just spent lots of time updating for Easter), the Theory of Relativity (which I just improved), adding new entries, and improving other entries. Tomorrow is the date of death of Pablo Picasso, and I need to be sure we have an entry on that.

The student panel has been working on the Theory of Evolution. They plan some limited changes, I think. Keep in mind that this is a very popular page by visitors who expect something different from Wikipedia. There is no reason to have a Theory of Evolution page like Wikipedia's, which censors criticism of the theory. Folks can go there if they want that. About 250 words in our current entry does introduce and explain the theory in a concise manner, which is part of our rules. Then the reader should see material that cannot be found on Wikipedia.

User:Conservative has contributed some very, very popular entries. We are a meritocracy here. We don't allow a heckler's veto and we are not one man, one vote. Someone who has contribute four of our top eight or so entries is doing something right (no pun intended! :-) ).

That said, this issue is out of my hands. The student panel is tending to this but, by the way, they do celebrate Easter and I don't know if they are online at this time. Thank you for your comments and interest.--Aschlafly 23:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

1. No, you can’t spend your whole time on evolution. And you wouldn’t have to if you hadn’t made such a mess of it. You have made a mess of it by letting Conservative take the article over. That is the only reason that it is taking up so much of your time at the present. You are so obsessed with maintaining an article that reflects your world view that you have lost sight of any sense of scholarship. You are well aware that it is an article that a number of editors are interested in. You are well aware that the current article is an embarrassment. You are well aware that its popularity is based on people laughing at it. Further, you appear to suggest that your student panel are going to directly make changes to the Theory of evolution page. Are you suggesting that they are going to make a couple of changes and keep the page locked? I certainly did not understand that to be a possible outcome of this process. I understood that they were mediating between the interested parties not taking over the editing task themselves. If that is correct then interested editors are to have no input into the page… ever. Brilliant! That will be a real victory for… well I’m not sure but it won’t be a victory for Conservapedia.
2. You persist with the utter myth that someone has suggested a Theory of evolution page which censors criticism. Who said that?
3. You make no attempt to deal with the complaints of abuse against Conservative other than to rather limply say that his pages are popular (a matter dealt with above). You make a laughable reference to this being a meritocracy. The basis for that comment appears to be that if someone can write an article so idiotic that it gets the whole liberal blogosphere linking to it then that person has merit. Genius! Conservative now has the dubious honour of being the only sysop with his own abuse page. It is quite clear to me that you have no intention of dealing with him. It is because he is doing exactly what you want him to do. You share his views and that is all that matters to you. That is also why you were decidedly cold on my suggested rules. You don’t want rules for sysops. Rules for sysops inevitably means people complaining that Conservative has been breaking the rules for sysops.
4. I read somewhere on the site that you were a lawyer. Is that true? Where I come from the law is an honourable profession and lawyers understand concepts such as proper processes and fairness. I don’t understand how you could possibly be a lawyer. You don’t appear to have any understanding of those things at all. In addition to your reluctance to create rules inter alia for the protection of editors, look at the way you have behaved on the James Maxwell page. Not only would most lawyers be smart enough to realise that the speech you have referenced does not support the contention that you added to the article, but they would also understand that taking a high-handed approach and not explaining your actions was counterproductive. Are you actually interested in an article which is factual? Do you care that you are misrepresenting a great man’s views?
My experience leads me to believe that I will not receive a reasoned response to this. TerryK would no doubt tell me that I should learn from my experience and forget criticising. I must be a very stubborn person. --Horace 01:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
P.S. Have you made up your mind about whether to make me a sysop yet? --Horace 01:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I would like to remind Andy that if we are a meritocracy here, merit should be judged by something real. Using "page views" as a measure of "merit" is not narrowly tailored or sufficiently related to actual merit to justify its use. Look at the highest page views for God's sake. By the way, every day that your page remains a mockery of itself under Conservative's sway is another day that the Alexa ratings drop... see here.-AmesGyo! 01:55, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

User:Sid 3050/Popularity of Evolution - I tried to find sources that prove that Theory of evolution is so popular because it's so great. I gave up after two Google result pages of people mocking it. Worth a read, it should put things into perspective. --Sid 3050 10:23, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
And a propos Alexa:
Quoting Star Trek: "He's dead, Jim." --Sid 3050 10:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)


  • ANDY: check this out! [8] I don't know if the software allows music..."He Lives" is one of my favorite hymns, maybe one of yours. --~ TK MyTalk 00:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Maxwell again

Why don't you try using the talk page. --Horace 00:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate topics

Do I have your permission to move the articles at Debate topics from the "Conservapedia:" prefix to the "Debate:" prefix sometime in the next few days? I need a stupid menial task to perform. --Hojimachongtalk 02:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

That would be great, Hoji! A good and happy Easter to you.--Aschlafly 14:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
DONE. And a happy Easter to you too, Andy (well, I'm on the west coast, so it still is for me). --Hojimachongtalk 00:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


I wish you and your family a blessed Easter. Glory to the Risen King. Geo.Talk 02:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you very much, Geo! The same blessed Easter to you and your family, and to all!--Aschlafly 09:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Theory of Evolution article

Andy, I've been thinking about making a proposal to the Conservapedia Panel regarding the Theory of evolution article. Is it too late to do so? If not, how should I do so? Should I put something on the article's talk page and expect them to see it, or what? Philip J. Rayment 09:19, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Panel/Submit‎ - Myk 09:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll make sure the student panel sees it also, Philip! A joyous Easter to you.--Aschlafly 14:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
I've seen around 100 complaints about Theory of evolution from the liberals whom User:Aschlafly has graciously permitted to join this project, but not one useful idea about how to improve it.
I've started Origins debate and Michael Behe and have made a few edits to Evolutionism, none of which have been reverted, or even challenged. I'd like to see less fussin' & cussin' and more good writin' heah, okay y'all? --Ed Poor 19:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Do you know what I'd like to see less of? People being labelled as liberals merely because thay are not young earth creationists.
Ed, your optimism is always inspiring but you appear to be utterly unaware that suggestions have been made to improve the evolution article. All have been ignored (just as my post above has been ignored). How can you expect people to waste their time writing more suggestions? --Horace 21:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

More optimism

I got frisky and added two more Differences with Wikipedia:

  • We do not require contributing editors to have to explain themselves constantly and justify every single edit to prove that it conforms to an exacting set of rules which are designed to suppress original thought, new ideas and penetrating insights.
  • We do not drive a away experts by pretending that some random anonymous user who just signed up is as knowledgeable and authoritative as a scholar with decades of experience in teaching or research. --Ed Poor 22:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Excuse me, but those two are false.-AmesGyo! 22:15, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Except, Ed, on that second point, I think it only applies to your behavior. Many others on here feel free to shove experts aside.--PalMDtalk 22:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, more hypocrisy. I feel an urge to quit creeping o'er me once again. These are incredibly vindictive and gossip-esque appearing. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 22:19, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
The first point kinda omits that the more favored editors can simply revert ANY edit (no matter how well-sourced or critical for the proper understanding of a subject) without an explanation. In other news, we don't have any real content rules we could conform to. And that's a part of the problem. It's pure "opinion versus opinion", and in the end, it grinds down to stubbornness or influence. --Sid 3050 22:22, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
  • By "...more favored editors" You mean ones who are polite, and not spending 100% of their time here criticizing? Or do you mean those who don't seem to enjoy painting themselves into a one-topic box? Or do you mean those editors who just keep adding topics, and ignore the "argument of the day/week/month"? --~ TK MyTalk 22:42, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

"one-topic box" could also be called "area of actual expertise"PalMDtalk 22:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
and as far as "respect for experts" I refer you to what happened to contraception, and to my talk page.PalMDtalk 22:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
  • True, Palm, very true. I somehow doubt we have that many "true experts" in Evolution and the scientific aspects of Creation, however one believes it to have occurred. We do have a surplus of people who are anti-Christian, and intent on purging this place of anything smacking of Christianity, IMO. --~ TK MyTalk 22:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

TK, many of the people you call "atheists" are actually believing Christians (see e.g. Hoji). However, we do not accept the Bible as literal truth, since (1) this does not make sense, given our understanding of religious documents, and (2) all early Church scholars (see e.g. St. Augustine) agree on this point.-AmesGyo! 22:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

We are definitely short on experts on this site, TK, and I think part of that is because no one takes us seriously enough to wish to contribute. Any time someone with a background in bio edits something, a few overzealous sysops start the censoring process. The bio ideas are neither pro nor anti Christian. They have no bearing on religion at all.PalMDtalk 22:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Ames, I said nothing about "believing Christians", nor Hoji in particular. I said anti-Christians. You are reading what you want into what I typed.  ;-) --~ TK MyTalk 22:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Confused. You accused your critics of being anti-Christians. I said that in fact, many of them are Christians...?-AmesGyo! 23:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

  • "My" critics? I said something about "my" critics? I didn't. --~ TK MyTalk 23:02, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay. Caving to your formalism, you argue that the "evolutionists" are all anti-Christian. I said they're not, for the above reason. Pardon my errors?-AmesGyo! 23:03, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Guys, this is still Holy Easter, so I want to avoid polemics. But please allow me to say this. Recently I've contributed many new entries. Ed and TK have contributed valuable new entries also. I do not think PalMD, Ames and Sid have contributed nearly as many new entries as Ed, TK and I have. PalMD, you appear to be an expert on some topics, but your entries have focused on non-encyclopedia claims about birth control that don't belong here. Sid, it seems like 90% of your edits are backbiting of others. Ames did a much-appreciated entry on Augustus Caesar that I featured on the front page, but perhaps 90% of his edits have been complaints.
We're trying to move the ball down the field for the benefit of students and the public, and we are doing so. At some point the constant complaining in our huddle and the lack of progress by those complaining becomes a distraction. I don't mind it but am getting concerned that our other producers might mind it. If they do, as producers they have the power to block, and I'd prefer they do that rather than be discouraged. We are a meritocracy here. I'm trying to be as polite as possible and keeping with the good spirit on Easter. Thank you. I'm going back to constructive edits rather than argue here, and hope Ed and TK do also.--Aschlafly 23:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure how my articles are "un-encyclopedic". I fully expect to open any good reference and find un-censored information on many topics. I would like to be able to find Phil's and Terry's ideas in other places, places where they are not the only voices. Here, encyclopedic does not mean enclyclopedic, but myopic. I would like to see that change.PalMDtalk 23:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not "backbiting", I'm trying to highlight problems and potential issues. Unless you see things like "complain about abuse" or "complain about copyright issues" as backbiting. The thing is that many of my edits corrected things YOU wrote. Like your "Nobel Prize" paranoia party. Or your "Moon Theories" FUD. Or your unencyclopedic gossip in "Wikipedia". Any genuine attempt to improve things was met with resistance because I don't want to play your game of "All scientists and the guys on Wikipedia are clueless idiots who conspire against good, conservative Christians". Any case of pointing out issues with the system or flaws in your argumentation is being ignored.
Still I rewrote a few articles and invested a good deal of time into others. The only difference is that I don't copy 1:1 from x sources, that I don't misrepresent sources to say things I want them to say, and that I try to write more than just ONE LINE when creating a new article. But don't expect me to create tons more targets for your favorite sysops to mutilate or twist.
Besides, you are so blinded my "merits" that you ignore all criticism. One would think that you had learned a lesson after the Richard incident. You made a guy a sysop after a few good edits and then ignored all complaints. And that guy turned out to be a hoax, but you only did things based on the fact that he was a hoax, not on the fact that even some of your sysops complained about him.
It's sickening to see all criticism of you or your sysops simply being ignored like that. But that shouldn't be surprising. After all, you also ignored the criticisms voiced by all blogs and newspapers. It must be nice to simply label any critic as "liberal" and be done with it.
"You criticize me -> You are a liberal -> You don't know what you're talking about -> I can ignore you." --Sid 3050 07:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Happy Easter, Andy! You're welcome not to engage in polemics; I, however, will post, so that you can see it tomorrow when you want to read my responses. I disagree with the assumption that criticism is non-constructive. I think that my criticism will make this site better. Also, any time you're curious about my contributions, point your browser to my User Page.-AmesGyo! 23:14, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Where did you teach law? <3 Chevron deference.-AmesGyo! 23:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Seton Hall Law School, in fall 1995.--Aschlafly 23:38, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
That's quite an accomplishment!! Congratulations. I bet it was fun.-AmesGyo! 23:40, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Ames, BTW, I did not say, in any form whatsoever, that all Evolutionists are anti-Christian.--~ TK MyTalk 02:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Moral/physical relativity

What say you? Can you support your words with reason instead of name-calling? Talk:Theory_of_relativity Teji 13:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The Population Bomb

May we unprotect this page now? --Ed Poor 13:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, thanks. It was only blocked because it was on the front page. When those links are removed from the front page, the protection can be lifted also. Thanks.--Aschlafly 13:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Would this also apply to 2008 Presidential Election? The protection reason was "linked on front page; anticipating vandalism", but it doesn't seem to be linked to from there anymore. --Sid 3050 16:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Yep, thanks for alerting me to it. I've unlocked it at your request.--Aschlafly 16:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Awesome, thanks :) --Sid 3050 17:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson)

Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at Talk:Zach Johnson. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --Sid 3050 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Sid, you have been warned many times. This type of complaint belongs on Sysop Abuse page, not on Andy's talk page. When will you get it? --~ TK MyTalk 19:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Again, ignore the charge, focus on the person making the charge. This is a masterwork piece of dodging responsibility. Myk 19:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
You specifically requested Andy's opinion. But if you insist to be reported properly, that's fine by me... *posts a copy there* --Sid 3050 19:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Record of the Panel's Decision

Andy, as a former professor of administrative law, I think that will will appreciate this. Since what took place was a kind of adjudication, I think it appropriate that you air the records, reports, or notes generated by the Panel in coming to their decision. I realize it was probably more "informal," but I bet that you have some sort of statement from some of your students, at the least. We deserve to know the reasons, evidence, and factors considered in the Panel's decision.-AmesGyo! 21:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

And by the way, how do you justify continuing to call this an "encyclopedia"? --Hojimachongtalk 22:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Battle of Hampton Roads

Another article done and ready for viewing. Karajou 22:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh man, that is AWESOME!!!!! I didn't even know that battle had occurred! I need to get some more of your great stuff on the front page!!! Will do tonight.--Aschlafly 22:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
The Civil War, its causes, outcome, and battles, should be mandatory teaching for every school kid in America. :) Karajou 22:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Absolutely. It's worth having a Wiki just for that!--Aschlafly 22:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I've got a little bit started for the American Civil War: 1862 article, which is going to take quite a bit of time for that as well as the remaining related articles. I will finish Robert E. Lee first, which is two-thirds done. And of course the minor "tweaking-after-they're-done" just happens. Karajou 23:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Which one would you like me to link on the front page tonight?--Aschlafly 23:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
You could do Battle of Hampton Roads right now. Lee isn't finished yet (tomorrow it will). If you want, use one of the photos from the article to illustrate the front page link. Karajou 23:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Cleanup of Abuse page

Just thought you might like to now that I cleaned up Conservapedia:Abuse and added a header to make it look nicer. Geo.Talk 01:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks much! That helps a lot.--Aschlafly 01:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry to bother you, but it looks like TK is going nuts. See Conservapedia_talk:Sysop and Admin Abuse and User_talk:TK. Geo.Talk 02:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
  • LOL...George, it is something I have been discussing with Andy for sometime now. Thanks to all of you for cooperating and showing your attitudes towards newbies, cooperation as a Sysop group, and all the rest. Most people have no idea what in the heck "Wiki-Ways" are, and it is the responsibility for all of you, all of us, to consider them, inform them, just as you have here to Andy. Otherwise we continue to drive away new people. You cannot imagine the number of complaints that come in about how people are treated her. We should be striving towards a good Christian ethic of cooperation and understanding, explaining things nicely, and patiently, willingly passing on our knowledge and information, not just about articles, but site administration as well. This is something most do not care to take the time to do. --~ TK MyTalk 02:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Easy, easy. Let's have collegiality. Thanks, TK!
By the way, Geo, are you in Canada? Don't feel any obligation to say here, or even tell me by private email. It's just that I thought we had at least two Canadian Sysops, which would be nice, but I can only recall one now. We also have two Australians and two Brits. It would be good to have a German join, as there has been high interest from that country also. Any Germans out there interested?--Aschlafly 02:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
No, I am in the US (Pacific time Zone). Geo.Talk 02:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I have a scant amount of German blood in me if that counts. MountainDew 02:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Please see this this. Geo.Talk 02:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

New pages

These are the last 50 articles I started: Right to life movement, Saline abortion, Comfort women, Silent scream, Speech codes, Balint Vazsonyi, Usage, Theory and fact, Rastafarianism, Wiki way, Red link, The word, Getting Better, Brian Mitchell, How to write a Conservapedia article, Unguided evolution, Fidelity, Conscientious objector, National Center for Science Education, Infrared, I Have a Dream, Paul Simon, Political spectrum, Infinity, Equality, Trawl, Orbit, Deduction, Sit-ins at lunch counters, Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, Diane Ravitch, George Carlin, Donkey, The Manchurian Candidate, Wolves, Suffolk Punch, Manure, Riders of the Purple Sage, The Family Man, Brainwashing, Frank Sinatra, To Sir, With Love, Strider, Hate, Methods of contraception, Fornication, Idiot, Ellipse, Blood type, The Paradoxical Commandments, Carbon dioxide

Stop me if this is too much, too soon. --Ed Poor 09:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

This is fantastic, Ed!!!!!--Aschlafly 10:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, nice work! MountainDew 14:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Woot! Excellent! If you run out of ideas, Conservative has a list of another 30 or so on my Talk Page! --~ TK MyTalk 14:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, my current favorite among these is Donkey. But I enjoyed writing Frank Sinatra the most. --Ed Poor 18:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

A definition for Creationist?

  • I think there is too many technical worries over catagories and the rest even before the article is nailed down, eh? Can we not move this off Andy's page, to somewhere else? --~ TK MyTalk 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
And moved to Category talk:Creationists --Mtur 19:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Original Work Essays

Do you think that we could put a link to the list of Original Work Essays on the front page so as to increase their readings, or in some other location? I'm thinking about writing an essay about the inefficiencies of the capital punishment/appeals system in the United States. MountainDew 17:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Sounds like a great idea!--Aschlafly 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Suggested articles for "News" on the Main Page

Instead of posting suggested News articles on your talk page which is frequently archived, I am adding new articles here Suggested articles for "News" on the Main Page. If you watch this page, then it should be easy for you to find new articles when you want something different for the Main Page. I have been busy creating new articles relating to Minerals and I'm working on improving the Brigham Young article as well. I will continue to add suggested news items and divide my time with other article tasks. Crocoite Talk 19:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

That's a superb idea, Crocoite. I have some ideas that I'll include there also and I welcome feedback.--Aschlafly 19:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Question from New User

Hi Mr. Schlafly. I just heard about this site from my roommate. Imagine my delight - after having spent months dealing with the liberal brick-wall influence at Wikipedia! I've heard that this project is just getting off the ground, and that most subjects need a lot of work, but I was wondering where you think I can be most helpful. Thank you for this opportunity! --Thammersmith 19:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for asking. If you're in college, how about building entries about colleges? They can be brief, concise entries like the one I just did on St. John's College. If you're working, some entries about things you see in the news would be helpful. Welcome!--Aschlafly 19:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Olive Branch

You need extras? I have one if you want it...--PalMDtalk 19:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I much appreciate that gesture, which I just saw. What's your extra?--Aschlafly 21:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


I don't think he should have been blocked. could you unblock him please? --CPAdmin1 22:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Phil, like I told you, Andy is aware. --~ TK MyTalk 22:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


You recently removed the Stub template from the article Aesthetics, do you really believe there is no more than a single sentence to be said on the subject? Orgone 23:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

This isn't Wikipedia, where stubs are overused. Sometimes a one-sentence entry is better than a 5,000-word entry. More words is not always better. Often more words are worse.--Aschlafly 23:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, stubs seem to be used differently at Wikipedia anyway, where it is a general tool, not an "I promise i personally will finish this article." notice. Orgone 00:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Stubs are used on Wikipedia as a bullying tool, a way to discredit entries someone may not like. An astounding percentage of entries on Wikipedia have some kind of stub, which are deadening in effect.--Aschlafly 00:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I just did a stub entry on Thomas J. Jackson (try to guess who he was before you have a look!). For myself, a stub is an article on hold, for filling in within a couple weeks. Perhaps your entry on Aesthetics will go beyond a stub and look really good. Karajou 23:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Awesome!!! (I knew who he was before looking). This Civil War stuff is fantastic. Would you like me to post another Civil War entry on the frong page?
General Burnsides was my favorite. He became a scapegoat for the North.--Aschlafly 23:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh, by the way, feel free to use "stubs" yourself if useful to you. My objections is to overuse of stubs by persons who never fix the entries up.--Aschlafly 23:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
What I would like to see is a category on each user page listing stubs such and such user put in, with the intent that the user would finish it later. Karajou 23:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
American Civil War...that one is done. And that Burnsides guy is a must! Here you have a sitting general, with all the education tax money can buy, and he's got to send wave after wave of troops over a narrow bridge to be cut down en masse by the enemy, while just down the stream the water was only three feet deep. Go figure! Karajou 23:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Wow, your American Civil War entry is phenomenal!!! Nearly an entire course could be talk based on that entry alone! I'll put on the front page immediately.--Aschlafly 23:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
That one is just the prelude to the war...1861 is done as well, but not the rest. At least not yet! Karajou 23:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Just to let you know, one of the stubs added and abandoned was Horatio Nelson, and the only edits before today were rather disparaging. I'm going to claim that article and work on it as well. Karajou 00:00, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Uploading Images

I've been told that a problem with uploading images has been fixed.--Aschlafly 23:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well I uploaded a photo tonight: see H4 Handy Recorder. --Ed Poor 00:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Block Policy

Andy, I'm still feeling my way here. I noticed that, after I scrubbed some inappropriate content, you went ahead and blocked the involved editor indefinitely. I don't quarrel with that; I'd just like to know what guideline you used to decide that he rated a block without delay and without warning.--TerryHTalk 10:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

One was for obscene-type material and lots of stub insertions without productive work. Increasingly I'm going to block for obviously and repeatedly unproductive work and discussion.--Aschlafly 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
To further this discussion, users TK and Karajou appear to be of the understanding that questioning Biblical literalism is now a blockable offense [9]. Whilst you may set any rules you wish, I would like a comment on whether this is now an official rule, or if these users have overstepped their authority. Nematocyte 10:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Nematocyte, we're not like Wikipedia here with thousands of words in rules. We are a meritocracy and Karajou is at the top. I'll look at your edits and see how your contributions compare. I can tell you this: someone who posts far more complaints than constructive edits is a candidate for blocking. We're building an encyclopedia here, not engaging in senseless argument. Thanks for your cooperation with this purpose.--Aschlafly 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, Nematocyte, I've reviewed your edits. I estimate that 90% or more of your edits have been talk, talk, talk, and less than 10% substance. And what is an example of one of your edits? I think you called CreationWiki a "peculiar brand of paganism"! My view is that your account should be blocked and I defer to any Sysop who agrees and decides to block your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I take your statement to mean this: "If you have a question, don't ask, just edit." Correct? Flippin 13:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't understand your question, "Flippin", but I invite any Sysop to do a similar review of your edits as I just did for Nematocyte, and act appropriately with respect to your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
So, am I to be banned for discussions? Is that what you are trying to not-so-subtly say? I have made some significant contribs around here in the last few weeks and would like to get answers to some of my questions before I continue. Flippin 13:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I haven't reviewed your edits yet, and I invite other Sysops to do so. I did review Nematocyte's edits and I could not find a single new entry by him, and it appeared to me that 90% was talk, talk, talk. That's obviously not what this project is about.--Aschlafly 13:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I see you have dropped the pretense of the rules being similar to a "constitution" and this site as a "republic" wiki. Its now a straight up dictatorship complete with an inquistion panel! Etaroced 13:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Would you be willing to review Karajou's ban on Sid? It seems to me that the given reason "harming conservapedia" is so loose as to imply a ban is more of a whim, than anything else. Flippin 13:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you post a summary of the percentage of Sid's edits that talk compared with quality edits? Also, can you post how long the block was for? Thanks.--Aschlafly 13:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
P.S. Flippin, please post your own numbers of talk v. quality edits too. Thanks.--Aschlafly 13:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, are you discounting people whose talents lie mainly in editing rather than creating? If editors are unnecessary, why do they exist in the publishing business? Also, "talk, talk, talk" is what a community-based approach to anything is going to be about. You discuss, form a consensus and implement the consensus, surely. How can consensus be arrived at without talk? Airdish 13:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Airdish, I'd like to see your contribution numbers here also. Could you post your percentages? My statements above are clear and I don't think anyone misunderstands them. Thank you.--Aschlafly 13:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
This is ridiculous, you are marginalizing this site Mr. Schlafly. I feel compelled to ask you to seriously re-evaluate your methods before its too late, if its not too late all ready. I have contributed to this site under a range of IDs now for over a month and seen it regress it something far worse then you claim to stand against. Censorship, POV pushing, and now this insane gestapo tactic for handling dissent. I thought things were bad under my first ban, but you have demonstrated that they could be far worse. I have learned my lesson and know that as bad as it appears right now you and your sysops are capable of making it worse. Stop now and demonstrate to the few people that are still hanging around hoping that something good can come of this that you are able to create something WORTH contributing too. Its up to you of course, but at least take a moment to contemplate the state the site is in, where you want it to go, and the approach that will take you there. Look at the things that kept this country strong, think about how we have handled dissent, think about the things you complain about wikipedia and then come back and make your decision. Etaroced 14:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I didn't count the pages I contributed to (somewhere around 200) but 89 new pages are my creation, thank you. I'm also glad to see this led to a change in the commandments. Flippin 14:00, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
That's good, Flippin! Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I think it's a fairly good move, should prompt more activity. But may I repeat the question further above? Is questioning of Biblical literalism ban-worthy, as some sysops have suggested. RDre 14:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
So now you're gerrymandering? You're creating rules and then blocking me for breaking them when they weren't rules? I am completely baffled by you people. I am done with your site. Watch me turn the other cheek. Malcolmwhy 14:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Like I said in the mail, Andy: I wasn't blocked for not meeting The Quota (By the way, using mainspace edits / total edits (which got all sorts of problems, like counting revert wars and vandalism-guard as "good edits"), I get to 22% or so. You got the more exact number in your inbox, although it's possible that I gave a wrong definition - not sure anymore, and I don't got a copy saved. The definition here is correct for the number, though. Even more by the way: Airdish got banned, and I can't really find out how Karajou got to his 4% result - I got 23% with my rough calculation).
I was blocked for asking questions Karajou didn't like and for violating the brand-new rules "Do not question the Bible" and "Do not question sysop decisions". See User talk:Karajou, Talk:Bible and Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse.
That being said, banning people for not meeting an arbitrary number of good edits sounds like a bad idea. Pure number-pushing means nothing. My x% don't say that I created a Help page from scratch and rewrote a few articles. I'm somewhat disappointed to come under investigation WHILE being banned for something that can only be summed up as "Sysop Abuse".
I am more worried and disappointed about this project than ever. --Sid 3050 14:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Banning for a quota of main page edit seems counter productive. It would encourage people to make many, many small edits to articles. Instead of a single edit adding five paragraphs across the article, it would encourage making five, one paragraph edits. Secondly, in some articles much of the question of content is fleshed out in the talk pages - when done correctly, this avoids revert wars in the main article, which is likely seen as a bad thing. The extended research and reasoning about why a particular edit is made can be found in the talk page instead. Third, it encourages creation of many small articles - a sentence definition here, a sentence definition there and you've got a few dozen articles with no real content to them. Fourth, the percentage approach penalizes someone who has made (example numbers) 10x contributions to articles and 100x talk page edits more than someone who has made 3x contributions and 3x talk page edits. I do not believe that the approach of trying to set a quota, much less a percentage based quota, would encourage any more useful edits and would likely discourage an attempt to bring consensus on what an article should contain in the talk page. --Mtur 15:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Of course you don't agree, Mtur, as it would leave you rather alone, wouldn't it? I had two other people read the first part of this section, ones who are not users here, and never heard of this place. Neither came away from reading Andy's words above thinking there was now some quota of production attached to it. Personally, what I did upon reading Nematocyte's comments on Karajou's talk page was look at their contributions. In detail. What I read, as did Andy, was unrelentingly snide posts, completely hostile to other editors and anything remotely Conservative and/or Christian. It doesn't take a MENSA membership card to notice all that. So when people who do little more than nit-pick and who rarely actually contribute beyond a snide, hostile and/or condescending remark, insert themselves into an administrative action (of which they were not a party to) rather imperiously demanding an explanation, it really gets my attention. After reading the contribs of the two indignant souls posting to Karajou, I realized what they had in common with the removed editor was their dislike of Conservapedia and/or Andy, and/or Conservative or Christian friendly thought, ala Wikipedia, that old bugaboo some hate being brought up. This place isn't there, and doesn't wish to be like it. Get it? Of course there is value in those who read and question. Duh! But when their comments are unrelenting of the negative/snide kind, and only ever agree with others who do likewise, the pattern becomes very clear. What bothers so many here, is that we are not apologetic enough (for your liking) for what we believe. That is the bottom line. You just cannot get over the fact that so many "idiots" believe what we do. There, it's out of the closet now. We get it. And we remain unapologetic. Get over it! --~ TK MyTalk 16:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
The issue that I was trying to point out is that attempting to make a quota of main page edits to talk page edits will not encourage the type of material in the main pages that Conservipedia could point to with some sense of accomplishment. I do not have any problems with Christians (I am one myself). Nor do I have any issue with people believing whatever they wish to believe. What I was trying to point out and address is how such a policy would be detrimental to the community and its continued growth. This is the sole point that I am trying to address in the above post. It is not about the content that is in the articles, nor about the culture that is forming that is not apologetic to alternative views, nor about the culture of hostility that is forming to those who hold those alternative views. I believe the first of these is best taken up in the talk pages for the articles, and if you have any suggestion as to where to discuss the culture that is forming I will be glad to take that part of the discussion there. None of that negates the importance of the original bit I was posting about - what a quota of main space article edits would do to the community. I do not believe that you addressed this either in your response to me. --Mtur 16:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, that is the point. You cannot see the correlation, and your mind cannot be altered from the Wikipedia outlook on what makes an encyclopedia community "good", evidently. I clearly said, editors reading and making constructive positive or negative comments is a a good thing, in fact a truism. Editors with a slavish addiction that favors the witty/snide over truly constructive thoughts, are a liability. Cannot you see the difference? --~ TK MyTalk 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Main Page Tribute

Mr. Schlafly - Tomorrow Jerry and Macel Falwell celebrate their 49th anniversary! Do you think there's anything Conservapedia can do for them? Please let me know - they have been great members of the Conservative Community! --Thammersmith 14:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Sure! Please improve their entries here (e.g., Jerry Falwell) and we'll posting something on the front page with a link to their entries. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Range of subjects


I noticed that someone has started an informal project on novels--or at least one series of novels, to wit, The Chronicles of Narnia. I also saw an article on The Great Gatsby.

If we're going to profile novels, then what limits are we going to set on such profiling? Must any novel that rates an article on Conservapedia be part of a "recognized literary canon"? Shall we agree not to profile any novel that we would not recommend for young readers? And are we going to profile motion pictures or television shows, as is quite common on Wikipedia?

I can see good reason to profile some works of literature--say, the plays and poems of William Shakespeare or some of the classic novels from American, British, and other authors. But where shall we draw the line?

I ask because I have read a number of interesting contemporary novels that sound Christian themes. Would these be appropriate subjects?--TerryHTalk 17:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Shakespeare? Are you serious? Have you read Titus Adronicus? I won't discuss it here, but the subject is so disgusting I don't think it can be made palatable for young readers. Flippin 17:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Hamlet and Macbeth are good for students. --Ed Poor 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
  • TerryH, I am sure Andy will agree that if some novels have pages, then articles about Christian novels are especially welcome here, IMO. There are several major works on the topic, current ones, selling well! --~ TK MyTalk 17:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd say allow the profiling of anything consistent with our rules, which of course prohibits obscenity. An encyclopedia is necessarily broader than what we might personally recommend.--Aschlafly 17:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy Proven Right (Again) (unsigned)

As is customary, I observe the Parthian shot (see above link) and wish the best for the departing editor. Sometimes, not often, a departing editor returns with change in heart. Regardless, we wish them well.--Aschlafly 18:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Indeed! Prayer, and a good hard look at one's intentions and heart can do wonders! It always amazes me, almost without exception, people who take issue with you, Andy, invariably sink so deep into the muck, they actually betray their true intentions by attacking you Mom, or other family members. --~ TK MyTalk 18:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry... that user was blocked for an ideological reason and posted about it on his blog and this somehow validates his block? If he hadn't been blocked for specious reasons(twice), there would have been no blog post.Myk 18:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I did not find him to be particularly complimentary on his blog. :-) Look, we don't hold grudges here. I hope he doesn't either, and I hope he can return in a productive manner. In the meantime, we are building an encyclopedia here.--Aschlafly 19:05, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
  • FYI, Andy, I am marking Sysop's who unblock users who have been blocked by another Sysop, with this notation: "Thou Shalt Not Reverse Another Sysop's Blocks! Andy will decide such conflicts!". I don't think its too much of a chore to contact the blocking Sysop, and ask them to reconsider. --~ TK MyTalk 19:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, TK, In Sid's case, after several private communications with him, I've decided to unblock him. But thanks for your vigilance, TK.--Aschlafly 19:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
There is never a problem in saving a person who might still make valuable contributions. --~ TK MyTalk 19:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)