User talk:Aschlafly/Archive2

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thank you Aschlafly, I'd love to. Sorry I didn't respond, I didn't get the notification. I do a lot of work at odd hours and switching to other tasks helps me to relax. Richard 23:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Welcome, Richard, as a SYSOP! Block immediate and for infinite duration anyone who posts obscene material, or vandalism. Silliness or harmless mockery can be dealt with a short block or a warning. We try to minimize any locking of pages ("protect"), but if you see a page repeatedly being vandalized, then lock it. We have a growing number of SYSOPs and you can see from this page all the bright people around who can answer any questions. Again, welcome!--Aschlafly 23:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Thank you Aschlafly, it is an honor. Richard 02:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your kind words of support Richard 20:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Yo, sir. This is the Reverend Luc I. Makuma here. It seems that you have seen fit to ban me. Why is this? I was in the proccess of posting and editing out the more obvious liberal bias on an article on Chaos Magic imported from Wikipedia. I'm not sure how this counts as "nonsense", as you so charitably put it, as this is a thriving and flourishing occult tradition, practiced by countless persons throughout America. Historical figures such as Walt Whitman, William Blake, Friedrich Nietzsche, Aleister Crowley, William S. Burroughs, and similar company have practiced this very interesting tradition. If there was a problem with the article, couldn't you have brought it up on my talk page and discussed it, as opposed to flagrantly banning me immediately? I feel more than a little insulted by this treatment - there was nothing nonsensical about that article, and there certainly was nothing obscene about it. Please explain your actions.

Yours in Christ, the Reverend Luc I. Makuma

Please accept my sincere apologies. I made a quick decision amid many blocking decisions and evidently my judgment was incorrect. My preference would be to discuss these matters first, but the volume was such that it was not feasible.
I have never heard of "Chaos Magic" and it struck me as absurd that it would be related to "Chaos Theory" as the entry claimed. Also, note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach.
I am very sorry for my mistake and I will undo your block immediately. Please do not take the block personally as it was among many legitimate blocks. Thank you for making the effort to post your message. I look forward to seeing your original contributions on this topic.--Aschlafly 01:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is the sandbox I am using to research your whalte/migration/homing material and put in supported material: User:Conservative/andyresearchrequest Conservative 21:58, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative


Reporting problem edits?

I don't like to keep putting every problem report on your personal talk page... is there any place to put them where all sysops might see them?

Anyway: take a look at the User contributions of User:Christian concern and this version of the article on Abu Ghraib prison, before I replaced it with a short stub.

The article was created by User:Christian concern. The quotations supported by references seem to be accurate, by the way.

But phrases such as "Before the US Army liberated Abu Ghraib prison and turned it into a place in where God's work is done" and "the guards who served during 2004 are well known for their services to Christianity" seem like parody/mockery to me. Dpbsmith 22:08, 10 March 2007 (EST)

We should just delete the article, stub and all. Admitting Abu Ghraib existed just makes America and our military look bad. fullmetajacket

I think we're OK now. If he sticks to the facts, we should allow it. But we're not going to allow the mockery. Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:41, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Should I create Conservapedia:Abuse as a forum where users can report abuse? This would centralize things a bit.Geo. 00:14, 11 March 2007 (EST)
Sounds like a great idea. But please block obscene users or vandals immediately. The more I do this, the smaller percentage I see falling into a category of warn-then-block. The vandals and obscene users are obvious and should be blocked immediately for an infinite time period. Other improper edits can be handled by reverting the edits and then discussing. Anyway, that's my opinion.--Aschlafly 00:21, 11 March 2007 (EST)
Violators will still be blocked. this is just so regular users can notify us about abuse. Geo. 00:29, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Audio files

Hi Aschlafly,

Regarding this comment series, I believe that the MediaWiki software only allows Ogg Vorbis audio files to be uploaded, probably in an attempt to mitigate some copyright concerns. This hypothetically could be changed, but it would require some serious of the codebase, and I'm not sure if anyone has the desire to do this. I would offer my services, but I don't currently know PHP, and I'm not certain that allowing audio files of other formats to be uploaded would necessarily be the wisest course of action anyway. In addition, users probably should not embed audio files on their userpages, or on other portions of the website; apart from the fact that they likely don't know the HTML required to do this, and that the the servers are already painfully slow, Conservapedia is not MySpace, and should not be treated as such. Geekman314(contact me) 22:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Is this about what billy wants to put up? cause i think a encyclipedia needs music or somethin about music artist in it. I think it isnt right. He isnt violating any rules and Billy (knowing him personally) is as harmless as a fly. am i not right ppl from the history class? --Will N. 20:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

expletiveSaddaam and ChristianConcern and ObscenenameAnnCoulter were all vandals

expletiveSaddaam and ChristianConcern and ObscenenameAnnCoulter were all vandals. Christian Concern had some crazy statement about the Trinity in his prison article. He is just a vandal or a "big problem child". They are all permanently banned. Conservative 22:50, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Great effort!!! Well done!!!--Aschlafly 22:52, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Unfortunately, we have more vandals to take care of. My comp has a special word filter, so when any page contains such words, it redirects to a set page. I cannot revert the move of the main page talk to explicative by wikiguy because of this. I would appreciate it, if some of our Sysops could lend a hand...--<<-David R->> 22:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Sure, I'd be happy to revert the edits. But they are hard to find. Abu Ghraib is fixed, and I'll look for the others.--Aschlafly 23:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)
I reverted them all. It wasn't that tough.--Aschlafly 23:08, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks, Mr. Schlafly. Sometimes I wish my computer wasn't handicapped so. --<<-David R->> 23:09, 10 March 2007 (EST)

A request and comments by Sysop Conservative

1. I tried to support your 3 claims but only got to one of them due to putting out vandal fires.

2. I probably won't be active at this site as much as I have been due to something that has recently occurred in my life that I just found out about today.

3. Please don't put material in the Theory of evolution article unless each claim is supported via a good footnote.

4. Best wishes with Conservapedia if I am away for a while. I may be able to still contribute this month but perhaps not due to what recently happened in my life.

5. At least I did add some good material to the Theory of Evolution article but if there had been more vandals I wouldn't have been able to!  :) LOL Conservative 23:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Wow, Conservative. Hope things work out for you and we'll say some prayers for you. Take care.--Aschlafly 23:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Good luck with whatever has happened, Conservative. Our thoughts and prayers go out to you. --Hojimachong 23:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)
We will miss your insightful edits, Conservative. I hope everything works out. --<<-David R->> 23:41, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Thank you all for the nice comments. We need some more gunslinging Sysops to blow away those vandals. It appears as if David R has just been made a Sysop as I just saw him block someone if I am not mistaken. I think David will make a no nonsense Sysop that won't hesitate to ban obvious vandals. Sorry David for my hesitation to blow away F###Saddaam. With a name like that you don't need to investigate the edits. Just blow him away right away! Next time I won't hesitate. John Wayne "the Duke" would have blocked him immediately. LOL Conservative 00:07, 11 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Username Violation

Could you block User:Pedo? Clear profanity. --Hojimachong 23:52, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the tip. I see that David R has already blocked him before I could get to it.--Aschlafly 23:58, 10 March 2007 (EST)
We've made you SYSOP so you can block directly now, Hojimachong. Welcome! It's great having your very high quality edits and observations.--Aschlafly 00:16, 11 March 2007 (EST)
You've made my day, Mr. Schlafly, and that isn't a joke; My school's basketball team took 6th in state today! Thank you very much, and I promise to work to make Conservapedia a better place for all. --Hojimachong 00:33, 11 March 2007 (EST)
That's great! I coached student basketball for a few years, and found it very enjoyable. We never did as well as your school's team, however. Congratulations!--Aschlafly 00:47, 11 March 2007 (EST)


I have created a potential copyright policy at User:Geo.plrd/copyr. Please feel free to modify as necessary. Geo. 03:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It is you, sir who is opinionated and disrispectful towards general knowledge in general.

Okay, I will create another draft at User:Geo.plrd/copyr2. Geo. 22
14, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Archival of talk pages

Hi Andrew,

For future reference, you should probably move the contents of your talk page to a new page entitled something like "ArchiveX". The redirect thus created can be then be removed. This is definitely preferable to blanking your talk page. ~ Sorry to keep spewing this technical gibberish, but, being a geek, I compulsively speak in highly technical terms :). Geekman314(contact me) 11:00, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion.--Aschlafly 13:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

Please sign your comments using the signature button so we know who wrote the above sentence. Your entries are sarcastic opinions, as in the case of Gerry Studds. This is a serious resource. Avoid the sarcasm and opinions, and please stick to the facts. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Good news regarding your stuff and the Theory of Evolution article

I am have some good news regarding your stuff and the Theory of Evolution article (whale, migration, etc). I woke up this morning and I had an idea in which your stuff could be made quite compelling. I got so excited about it that I decided to return today and work on it. Conservative 17:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Great! I look forward to seeing your entry.--Aschlafly 17:12, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
I finished the buffing up of your material and included it in the Theory of Evolution article. Here it is: Conservative 19:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Please post whereever you think is appropriate. My hands are full with another important entry I'm working on. Thanks!--Aschlafly 19:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

User: Seriously

Uhhhhh... why did you dish out an infinite ban there? The Bias article was not world-class material, but it was definitely not worth an infinite ban. Deleting the article was the right choice, but the ban... nah. --Sid 3050 17:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The entry was obscene near the end (in addition to being silly throughout). Obscenity is a flagrant violation of our rules and demonstrates an attitude incapable of rehabilitation, I'm afraid. We don't have many rules, but we are strict about obscenity. Children visit this site.--Aschlafly 17:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Huh. I don't remember seeing any obscenity, but I'll take your word for it. Can't check it now anymore, and I may have overlooked it. *frowns* --Sid 3050 17:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
It was there near the end. After encountering hundreds of vandals as I have, there are tell-tale signs that jump out quickly at you. The user name was silly, his entry was a mockery, and it culminated with obscenity.--Aschlafly 17:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Certain matters of anatomy

So, I take it certain parts of the human body are taboo for making articles, no matter how clinically they're described? --Ballon 17:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, you're right, and note that such entries invite obscenity and vandalism. Again, this is like a family-friendly encyclopedia. The point is add entries that are genuinely informative. If Reader's Digest would reject it, then so would we. Really, our rules are not that complex.--Aschlafly 18:00, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Just for the record—not criticizing the policy—J. D. Ratcliff once wrote an article for the Reader's Digest entitled I Am Joe's Heart, in which his heart tells its story. In the first person. From its own point of view. The story was very popular so he went on to write a series of them in which various organs of his body told their stories. Eventually, he got around to writing one entitled (I am not making this up) "I am Joe's Man Gland." Yes, really. No, I am not suggesting that Conservapedia have an article about "man glands." Dpbsmith 20:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking this is a somewhat Orwellian policy. Wouldn't it be easier just to make an article that's reasonably complete & factual, then lock it? Having chunks of the human body (and politics, religion, etc.) that are Just Not Talked About is just going to make you look bad. --Ballon 18:02, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Our focus here is on education. The ban on obscenity is does not remove "chunks" of valuable information. The human anatomy you're referencing consumes less than 1% of a medical student's training. It's 0% of our training here. This clear rule against obscenity will attract quality visitors and editors, not dissuade them.--Aschlafly 18:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
"Our focus here is on education". Then why did you just remove my articles about certain parts of the human anatomy? They were not obscene, written clearly and simply to educate. Also how can you say that less than 1% of users would ever want this information? how can you know that? I accept that not many would need it, as it is fairly elementary to our understanding of the world and thus we have this as general knowledge, but I fear the Conservapedia appears shallow if it considers topics like this as taboo. The topics are referenced by many articles on the site such animal articles which talk about reproduction. Many international visitors, especially those without understanding of the language need such topics to clearly understand things. If they have no word to describe such things, life becomes difficult for all. Communication is essential and knowledge is critical. Please explain your position. --Realitycheck 21:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
It's hilarious. We can have twenty-page arguments over what to do when a woman is pregnant, but can't mention one word on the mechanics of how she GOT that way. --Ballon 21:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
It seems an unwillingness to accept that such articles are necessary to a holistic education is in fact a DENIAL OF REALITY. What do you have to say in response? --Realitycheck 23:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"Conservapedia:" namespace

Mr. Schlafly, regarding all of the debates in the debate topics page, I was wondering if I may move them to the "Conservapedia:" namespace. Currently, they are listed as encyclopedia articles, which they aren't. What is your answer? --Hojimachong 18:59, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

That's a great idea. Please go ahead and make the change as you think best.--Aschlafly 19:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Finished. That was a perfect example of what a Wiki "bot" does; really boring tasks that require numerous edits/moves/etc. --Hojimachong 19:35, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Agnostics supporting ID

Why did you remove the reference to agnostics who support intelligent design from the page Intelligent Design? Order 10:10, 12 March 2007 (AEST)

I thought I reverted the strawman about extraterrestrial beings.--Aschlafly 19:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the first scientific talk I ever heard about intelligent design was by an atheist medical doctor. His talk didn't specify what the intelligent cause was. In the question time he pointed us to his alternative explanation. Otherwise it was a perfectly normal Behe, Dembski talk on the subject. Order 12 March 2007, 10:30 (AEST)

That certain page...

I've created the template Template:deletedpage for use on repeatedly offending articles. Simply place {{deletedpage}} on a page, and then protect it. The page still exists, but there is no content on it. It infuriates vandals XD. I'm going to go protect some other undesirable articles now. Cheers! --Hojimachong 19:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

YOU ARE A GODSEND!!!! That is the best innovation I've seen in weeks or months or years!!! Please protect as many other candidates as possible. Error on the side of permanent deletion! The deletion log can provide lots of examples. THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!--Aschlafly 19:53, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Hehe, that is actually how pages like that are supposed to be delt with, or at least on all other major MediaWiki wiki's :). GofG 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
I will give you a handGeo. 21:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

My email

I sent you an email and never got a response. I assume maybe it got stopped by a filter, or maybe you're just busy, but I would like a response, please! :) GofG 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay, i sent you the email. Please check your mail. GofG 21:26, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't mean to rush you, but if you could please respond to my email soon :). I have to sign off to head to bed very soon. GofG ||| Talk 22:58, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, hehe, I'm signing off. Please reply to my email sometime tomorow I guess. G'night. GofG ||| Talk 23:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I was interrupted! I'll respond now. My apologies.--Aschlafly 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Um, question

I realize that I might have been overzealous, but your reverting a good many of my changes, many which DO have merit. I'd like this site to read more like an encyclopedia, and not a dictionary. I'm just saying if you remove the stub its harder for me to "refind" the article to edit.

Regards -Elamdri

Elamdri, pardon my frustration, but you quickly inserted dozens of ugly stubs that defaced the entries. This didn't add any value at all. It took me time to remove them, and some valuable edits may have been lost in this silly process. How about simply improving some entries first????--Aschlafly 21:54, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Would {{stub2}} work for Elamdri? It's small and less conspicuous. --Hojimachong 21:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Serious question: What else is the Stub template there for? It doesn't "deface" an article, it tags it as being in need of improvement. The articles that got tagged were in need of improvement, and Category:Articles needing major improvement (the category all stubs end up in) is a good starting point for people who want to improve articles. The list of reverts makes no sense, especially not for one-sentence "articles". Using Aschlafly's "reasoning", we should delete the stub template to avoid any more "defacing". --Sid 3050 22:02, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps I dislike, more than most, the Wikipedia style of inserting huge block disclaimers at the top of an entry. It seems to deface the entry. It's not a big deal if it is used for a half-dozen or dozen entries, which are then promptly improved. It is a defacement if used for dozens and dozens of entries, and then the person gets to tired and never returns to improve the entries. That leaves the site worse off than before. Also, as suggested below, inserting the stub below the entry rather than above is better, and using a shorter stub (stub2) also helps. Thanks.

Ok, thanks, will do from now on, and I'll try to be less of a Nazi!--Elamdri 21:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Source of Pictures

Just in case you aren't aware, I think the pictures at are useable under Conservapedia's guidelines. It contains many millions of pictures, of which many could be used; As long as Conservapedia is non-commercial and attributes the pictures to their source, they should work fine. Please review the guidelines there, and see if we can use them. Thanks, --Hojimachong 21:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

abuse noticeboard

We now have a abuse noticeboard. Geo. 21:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)


As it will make it easier for people to contact you: Go to your preferences at Special:Preferences and go to the "Nickname" box (check the Raw box). Type the following in: [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] <sup>[[User talk:Aschlafly|Talk]]</sup>. Your signature, instead of only having a link to your userpage, will then have a link to your user talk page. It will look like this: Aschlafly Talk, which is considerably more useful because people can get directly to your talk page. You can tweak around with it if you want. GofG ||| Talk 22:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Copyright Take 2

I rewrote the copyright proposal at User:Geo.plrd/copyr2. Geo. 23:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Uploads down?

Whilst trying to upload a file I instead get this error msg. "Could not copy file '/tmp/php43pfnK" to "/home/conserv8/public_html/images/9/96/Barry_Goldwater.jpg'. " Please advise. Thanks. [[User:Cracker|Cracker <sup>[[User talk:Cracker|Talk]]</sup>]] 23:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll report this. I've seen this error myself, yet others seem to be able to upload. I wonder if our own computer software is an issue.--Aschlafly 23:59, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
I just uploaded something. I am using Firefox and Windows XP. Geo. 00:30, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I emailed about this a day or so ago. I have had about 30% success uploading images. The error messages are similar to one Cracker quotes above. The only consistent thing I've noticed is that if an upload fails, simply retrying the upload never works. I usually try renaming the file on my local drive and try again. I have no idea whether that really helps. Someone, SharonS I think, has a theory that .gif's upload more reliably than .jpg's. Dpbsmith 13:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)


Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone (Jesus Christ, Gospel of John, ch. 8.) Karajou 03:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Amen. I apologize. Hope you like the new article Sodom. RightWolf2 04:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

"Homosexual Agenda"

The homosexual agenda article is a travesty. Please make an attempt at making it unbiased, or at least not outright offensive.--AmesG 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The entry is not much different from Wikipedia's entry on the same topic. We're not trying to be more liberal than Wikipedia.
I'm happy to correct errors or include facts on the other side. However, you're raising this for the first time at an extremely late hour so further changes may have to await the morning, unless you have something very quick to change.--Aschlafly 02:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Your corrections did not leave the bulk of my entry. The factual errors I won't touch, but I will state that the article is categorically opinion, derived from Focus on the Family. I personally think they're drivel, but they're entitled to be represented on your site. However, so is the other side. Put it back.--AmesG 02:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I'll trim most of the Focus on the Family opinion, leaving the quotes. I did leave much of your material, but of course not your liberal opinions.--Aschlafly 02:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
You're right, it's late. I don't see the changes yet, but I know you're a man of your word. I'm sure it'll be better, but I hope to make it better still. What part of my edit was "opinion"? Anyways, g'night...--AmesG 02:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Getting better - it's no longer flatly offensive at least, but I still think it should have a counterbalancing statement of opinion from the other side, which I'd be happy to write.--AmesG 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Maybe this is my personal opinion, but I feel that less time should be devoted to poor articles like the homosexual agenda article and more time should be devoted to improving the shorter articles and creating new, substantive articles with some more concrete, factual basis.--Elamdri 02:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Elamdri, I agree with you insofar as writing bigoted articles is a waste of time. However, removing or editing similar articles prevents this site from being lampooned by the media, so I think that's a good goal. On that note, Asch, are you willing to add a counterbalancing force on the homosexual agenda page yet?--AmesG 12:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Canada_newspaper block

Why did you block the Talk:Canada_newspaper page? Wasn't a talk page about... talking? I had a rebuttal going. Thanks in advance. Poltras 02:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you

It may take me alittle while to learn how to use it (I'm a technical clutz) but will do just as you outlined. Thanks again. RobS 12:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia deleted, redirected and protected

Okay, serious WTF here. I can't put it in more family-friendly terms, I'm sorry. Is there ANY reason why you did something this drastic? The article needed some clean-up to remove the bias, but it should have stayed. Officially requesting undeletion and unprotection. --Sid 3050

We don't need two separate entries about Wikipedia and its bias. The protection was required because people were putting in false statements like non-Americans are more intelligent and Conservapedia should be criticized (for its free speech?). The entry became a place for Wikipedians to spread more falsehoods.--Aschlafly 13:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
...since any reply I feel like writing would not change your mind and might possibly get me banned, I'll just leave it be. --Sid 3050 13:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

User: Luke-Jr

Thanks for giving him the warning, but we'll have to keep an eye on him. From what I can tell, he's a Sedevacantist. Which means anything relating to the current Catholic Church since Pope John XXIII, including Vatican II, is a heresy to him. And he's seems really committed to correcting what he sees as non-Catholic doctrine. If he could be steered into writing an article on Sedevacantism, that might keep him from renewing his edits. But he seems REALLY committed to this, so I fear it may have to end in his blocking.--Dave3172 13:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Provide him with an empty link (Sedevacantism), and tell him to get to work. That should provide him with a good project that may add some sort of value to Conservapedia. --Hojimachongtalk 13:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Sounds like a great idea. I did warn him but he's not a vandal and this dispute seems ideological.--Aschlafly 13:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I left him a message on his user page about the work space.--Dave3172 13:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
He keeps editing the Earth article to claim that the sun orbits the Earth. MountainDew 17:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)


Bye. I'm probably going to leave Conservapedia now. After less than a day. I thought it would be a good thing for me to contribute to since I myself hold quite conservative views. However, the lack of references, sources, grammar, sentence structure and proper English in your articles worries me greatly. Apparently any kind of research is not neccessary here. I saw a few articles with glaring errors which showed that the contributor knew either very little or nothing about the subject. It would have been better if these articles had never been created, since they make the site look amateurish. One contributor, who is also a Bereucrat and a Sysop here used the word 'silly' to describe a multilateral pact. I mean, HELLO? What kind of impression is that going to give people? There also appear to be errors on the pages about Roman Catholicism. Normally on a Wiki I would correct them, however I feel that by doing this I would simply end up in an edit war. The way people here react to 'liberal' views (i.e. a balanced point of view is not allowed and anything slightly middle-ground gets edited out) makes me feel that I would be treated the same way (and I mean, come on, us Catholics are hardly liberals now, are we?) I hope that the few contributions I have made during my time here have been helpful. I do think that it is a shame that I am leaving, because I came here not knowing what to expect but decided that I would try to contribute as much as I could. And no offence, but as (unfortunately) conservatives seem to be the minority on the Internet, you guys need all the help you can get. --EldestportTalk!Work 13:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Your comments are known as a Parthian shot. I won't return in kind and I wish you all the best. Hope you can return soon.--Aschlafly 13:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Umm, no. I was trying to be constructive with my comments. I can back up every single one with examples from this site. Nothing I said was meant to be derogatory or offensive, and on that basis I wouldn't mind if you did 'return in kind'. I understand if you find it hard to believe that my comments were left in goodwill as I understand that you are frequently attacked here for your views/stance/etc. I just think it is a shame that you are unable to take my comments and respond to them constructively. If you were able to do that then maybe you would actually stand a chance in the world of Wiki encyclopaedias. --EldestportTalk!Work 14:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

He says goodbye and I say hello. Hello, Hello. I don't know why he says goodbye I say hello.

I saw the last message to your discussion page. I found some time today to do some more work on the Theory of Evolution article. It will be on scientific fraud and the history of evolutionary theory. I will also be using examples where evolutionist used downright silly evidence to support their theory. I will be working on it here: User:conservativeEVOLUTIONANDFRAUD Conservative 14:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)conservative


I hate to bug you, but Petrus and Tsumetai are getting on my nerves about this whole blocked page thing and Petrus thinks it would be pointless to argue with me and it sure would be pointless for me to argue with him since he's such a blockhead. They now think they shouldn't take me seriously, so maybe you should argue with them instead of me. Just explain what constitutes and inappropriate edit since they can't get it through their thick skulls what it means, I can't get through to them. Thanks! Scorpionman 14:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

What's really annoying is that all the users who contribute to the talk page are liberals. None of them support me at all. None. Where are all the conservatives here? Hiding? Scorpionman 12:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Scorpionman, patience my friend. Rome wasn't built in a day. When a debate becomes too frustrating, spend the time posting new entries instead. Jesus did not spend all his time arguing. He spent some time arguing, some time praying, some time providing new information, and some time preaching to the choir. It's a good example for all of us. Thanks for you efforts so far. Don't give up or allow yourself to become frustrated.--Aschlafly 13:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Supporting commandments 1,2 and 6.

Dear Mr Aschlafly,

Conservapedia is a most interesting initiative and one to which I intend to contribute.

Having spent some time in the site, I note that there seem to be a number of entries which violate Conservapedia’s commandments.

I note that the commandments explicitly state that articles which break the commandments will be removed, and I see that articles which violate commandment 3 are quite quickly eliminated. Some other commandments, however, seem to be frequently ignored.

A good case in point is the article “liberal”. This article seems to violate some or perhaps all of commandments 1,2 and 6. Consequently, according to Conservapedia’s commandments, the article should be deleted. But there has been no suggestion that this should be done despite this article being number 21 in the list of most popular articles.

(I have raised a similar issue on the article’s talk page as well.)

My main point here is not the above article but a more general question: what systematic action does Conservapedia take to enforce its commandments and eliminate articles that are unsourced or are merely opinion?

british_cons 14:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Copied from Wikipedia?

As it stands, the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia with some minor grammatical changes. What is the proper process for addressing this? I believe that this is plagiarism and a deritive work of material that is copyright under the GDFL. If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed. --Mtur 15:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here.--Aschlafly 15:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)


I'll do my best to source the Obama criticisms when I have time, because they are definitely factual: there is video clip of Obama claiming he was conceived in Selma, Alabama despite having been born four years earlier. --NVConservative 16:07, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

You seem well-intentioned, but please don't post allegations until after you can support it, not before. I understand you're not having time yet, but please withhold the posting as well.
Also note that we have a strict rule against gossip, and your entry about Obama appears to fail on that independent ground. This is Conservapedia, not Gossipedia. Thank you.--Aschlafly 16:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I would urge this issue of unsourced statements to be discussed further; the last thing needed here are claims of libel. --Hojimachongtalk 19:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Encouraging "real-name-like" account names

One of your criticisms of Wikipedia that I tend to agree with is that pseudonyms tend to encourage irresponsibility. ("I'm not doing this, it's my evil twin.")

Initially, on Conservapedia, users tended to use names that (gave an impression of being) shortened versions of their real names. But virtually all of the recently created accounts have had fanciful pseudonyms that don't resemble actual names.

There's no point in making a rigid rule about this, because people can always use plausible-sounding invented or fictional names (or think they're being clever by using a name like Kfgauss (hypothetical example) and see if anyone spots it).

Nevertheless I think it might be worthwhile to encourage new users to use account names that are variations on their real names. Even if someone is using a name like First name + Initial of surname, which is really just as anonymous as "Laminar beeswax" or whatever, I think there will be a subtle difference in their behavior because they know the name they are signing is theirs.

I believe the text that says "Don't have an account? Create one" on the new account page is a template that can be edited to say anything desired. I propose that it be changed to say something like

Don't have an account? Create one. Conservapedia encourages you to choose an account name that resembles your real name, like Abainbridge or AlexanderB for "Alexander Bainbridge."

This will not magically solve vandalism problems—a peek at Special:Listusers is certainly eye-opening—but I think it will have an effect. Dpbsmith 16:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Your suggestion is terrific. I agree 100%. I'll forward this to the webmaster, as I don't know how to do this myself. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Totally agree with Asch. I'm proud of my firstname/lastname initial username, but I don't think mine is too anonymous, giving my "unique" first name :-D. Should discourage vandalism and encourage useful contributions. --AmesG 18:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
If you wish, I can re-register under a name resembling mine, although I'm leery of doing so given the tone of some of the emails I've received recently from people I've banned. MountainDew 18:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
That's not necessary at all, MountainDew. Your name is pleasant and you've described enough about yourself so that everyone is comfortable. There is no reason to be more descriptive.
It's the complete anonymity along with abusive entries that is the problem. I'm a big fan of anonymous speech, but there are limits when it is exploited for improper purposes.--Aschlafly 18:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd actually like to re-register with a name similar to my real name. I made this name because I started out kind of skeptical about the site but now I'm completely on board with what the site is trying to accomplish. TheTruth 00:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
You're most welcome to re-register, TheTruth!--Aschlafly 00:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I re-registered, would i be able to have my sysop abilities switched over to this account?NSmyth 00:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
You're all set with sysop/admin privileges at your new account id.--Aschlafly 00:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Contributing at Conservapedia

Why are persons who are traditionally non-conservative (= liberals; atheists; evolutionists) allowed to edit pages for factual content? Common sense says if you want accurate and factual information do not let your enemies guard the hen house.

Currently, I am attempting to convince Administration that evolutionists should not be allowed to participate in defining their rivals (Creationism). Why should the article on Creationism be eligible to edit by persons who are Evolutionists?

I really need to hear these answers from the Founders voice so I know what the vision is here and how it becomes reality. But as it sits now, many articles were written by non-conservatives and the reason for being of Conservapedia has been thwarted.

Ray Martinez 18:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I strongly oppose this. Without any liberal editors, we become a mirror of Wikipedia; we are biased extremist conservative, while wikipedia is biased mild liberal, the truth being somewhere inbetween. GofG ||| Talk 19:28, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
"extremist conservative" vs. wikipedia as "mild liberal"?? Was this a joke? Bwilliston 01:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservapedia is based on a few conservative principles, not people. It gives credit to Christianity and America; it's clean; it's gossip-free; and it's factual. Wikipedia is run by people; we're run by rules. We don't have to exclude anyone who abides by the rules. We're here to learn from each other and educate those who might not have heard conservative arguments yet. We don't want to simply preach to a choir.--Aschlafly 19:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I would agree with GofG - I would consider myself conservative in every respect; I am also a firm believer in evolution, and see no incompatiability between the two. As long as people with different views respect each other, I would not see any problem. In the same way, I would be happy to see contributions from persons of any stripe; a believer in communism, say, may well be able to explain the thinking behind it better than I could, even if I would not agree with their conclusions.Tracy C Copeland 13:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Resignation [1]

Ray Martinez 12:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If Conservapedia is not based on people but on princilples and rules I have one question: Who defined the principles and rules. People? If so, Conservapedia is made by those few People who were setting up the rules. --Itsjustme 19:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Parental judgment and discretion are advised.

No, that doesn't apply to all, or even to most, Conservapedia content. (Thanks to all the Sysops for removing pointless, vulgar, and obscene articles.) But what if you have to discuss some aspect of a subject that might appeal to someone's prurient interest?

My proposal: you advise people to exercise judgment and discretion.

You do it by using these two new templates that I have created:

Warning: The following material treats sensitive themes in a mature and forthright manner. Parental judgment and discretion are advised of all readers before they proceed further.

(Place your sensitive material here)

Sensitive material ends here.

The "noinclude" portion of each of those templates enjoins their would-be users to ask themselves whether the material really has to stay, before marking it off with these templates. I would not want to see them become an excuse for publishing vulgarism for the sake of vulgarism.

I invented them to bracket some material in the Objectivism article, and specifically Objectivism#Esthetics, this after someone chose to address these issues in a manner that was a bit more crude than I liked. I thought it wise to advise everyone that Ayn Rand had certain obsessions, and that one ought to judge her philosophical system, or at least that part of it that treated esthetics, while bearing this in mind. But no matter how I expressed it, the material was too sensitive for the casual viewer.

What do you think? Will this suffice? Or shall we create another namespace for such material and give people links to it from articles in the main namespace?--TerryH 19:07, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

PS: I absolutely, positively do not want to discuss ography or "alternative lifestyles" in Conservapedia to any greater degree than would be required to inform a discussion of another subject that this touches on--like, for example, legislation or jurisprudence. I offer these templates as an editorial policy aid.--TerryH 19:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Terry, I haven't looked at your entry yet, but our rule that we be clean and family-friendly is very strict. So is our rule against gossip. No exceptions, so I suggest you remove the material that you describe above. Perhaps in a few cases that causes the deletion of useful information, but most of the time it will eliminate distractions. Really, why should we care what Ayn Rand's obsessions were, anyway?--Aschlafly 19:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Butting in here, sorry... If you don't want kids to find it on the Conservapedia website, best not to have it on the Conservapedia website. High school kids are quite capable of figuring out how to find the dirty stuff. For example, search on PJADAA with all the boxes checked (thus searching all the namespaces). That didn't take long, did it? Dpbsmith 19:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
This issue has been discussed at Talk:Sex, and most people seem to think that some of these articles need to be included; Sex doesn't have to be dirty, or obscene, or anything like that; It's natural. However, I would propose an alternative solution; When typing in "Sex" (or any other mature topic) to the search bar, it would redirect you to a page which contains a warning about the content contained on the article, and a link to the article if you wish to proceed. What do you think? --Hojimachongtalk 19:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I personally am against censoring vulgar stuff, but I'll keep quiet but to say this: If it's a liberal who has obsessions, do we still not say them? Or do we say something like "has obsessions that are so attrocious that they cannot be uttered?" GofG ||| Talk 19:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I support TerryH's or Hojimachong's idea for the sake of having a warning in case of any material that merits its use. Day-time television is clean and family-friendly, and yet it isn't uncommon for news anchors to warn viewers that the following material may be inappropriate for some. It is better to have the template used in case of any uncertainty and then the material removed later, than for inappropriate material to slip by without any warning. ColinR 19:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Technical nitpick: No need to use the Search function, just click on "What links here" on the Template page, and you'll end up here. :P No real opinion on this issue. I find the family-friendliness a bit over the top, but I can see Aschlafly's reasoning behind it, so I'll respect it. Figuring out a way to let stuff back in strikes me as a bit "I dunno"-ish somehow. --Sid 3050 19:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't want to seem like a prude here, but I think the rule of a totally clean site makes for a better site, for adults too. I really do. I think this rule is central to Conservapedia and will be essential to its long-term success. " " attracts many vandals on the internet; it degrades the intellectual level; it encourages gossip; and it becomes a huge distraction. Perhaps this debate is like a debate of whether you want an adult theater built next to your home. Most people would say no, and I agree. There are plenty of other internet sites that welcome adult discussions, and people can go there. We don't need to provide it here. Believe me, even the liberals will thank us for this rule in the end! :-) --Aschlafly 20:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

That's it folks, it's been explicitly denied by Aschlafly. Sysops, get out your banhammers, because those who break this rule are going down. Thanks for listening to the arguments, Andrew. --Hojimachongtalk 20:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Hojimachong! I'm still amazed, by the way, at how you blocked the creation of all those obscene sites.  :-) --Aschlafly 20:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

New template

{{indefblock}}, to warn any nasty vandals of their blocking. I want to make it more snide and leery, but I'll leave that to others. --Hojimachongtalk 20:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Dual submissions here and at CreationWiki

I am a contributor both here and at CreationWiki. Much of the material that I submit there, I could also submit here--for example, Bible personage biographies, histories of the kingdoms of Israel.

The problem: if I submit the same material to both places, then how much different does a submission have to be? That is, how extensively do I need to change my expression from one forum to the other?--TerryH 20:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you're free to contribute your own material to multiple places however you like. You don't waive any rights to copy your own material. Your welcome to submit anything here that you've written and submitted elsewhere also, without changing one word of it. I look forward to seeing it.--Aschlafly 21:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I would recommend highly against doing this, as if at any point in the future we adopt a formal copyright stance, then CreationWiki is now violating our copyright. Viceversa. GofG ||| Talk 21:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
No, we're not going to let copyright suppress speech. We've been discussing our copyright stance and all are in agreement that our policy will allow virtually any copying that does not harm Conservapedia or its editors. So we won't be complaining in this scenario. Go ahead, Terry--Aschlafly 21:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
What about CreationWiki's copyright stance? GofG ||| Talk 21:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
It shouldn't matter for what Terry wrote himself.--Aschlafly 22:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Much appreciated! I have a lot of material on the Bible, much of which is on the kings of the Divided Kingdoms of Israel, but also including an article I wrote just today on the prophet Elijah.--TerryH 22:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Bring it on over here! I'd love to see it here.--Aschlafly 22:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Check it out, then: Elijah--TerryH 23:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I sent you a letter to your AOL mailbox.

I sent you a letter to your AOL mailbox. Conservative 22:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)conservative


was an example of what a malicious person with a wiki-bot can do. He's a famous Wikipedia vandal. --Hojimachongtalk 23:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Truly a sight to behold. Nice reaction time, by the way! --Sid 3050 23:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
The scary thing is, I clicked "block" before he had made any of the moves... all of them happened within 10 seconds or so. --Hojimachongtalk 23:26, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Thank you, Hojimachong, for catching it so quickly!
Why don't we track down his IP address and report him for prosecution? That's a federal crime in the U.S. what he did, and probably a crime in most countries. I'll find the federal statute that applies, and we can cooperate with Wikipedia in reporting vandals like that. He'll learn that prisoners don't have internet in jail. I know lots of prosecutors who would like to charge someone with an internet crime.--Aschlafly 23:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Let me know when you find the statute, I find Internet law to be a fascinating subject. --Hojimachongtalk 23:30, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I've requested his IP address from the server. Once I have that, I'll report him to his local federal prosecutor. I love criminal law. It's amazing how people think that the internet gives them free license to commit vandalism. After a few prosecutions like this, vandals like "Willy on Wheels" won't think that any more.--Aschlafly 23:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I've restored his User page so that prosecutors can see the criminal intent: "Prepare for the storm..." User:Willy_on_Wheels_II. Most likely he ran the wiki-bot from a computer sitting in his own home.
One statute that he just violated is 18 USCS § 1030, which criminalizes attempts to harm computers in such manner and imposes jail time of maximums of 5-10 years.--Aschlafly 00:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
The U.S. Attorney is gonna have a field day. Geo. 00:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
If I read that statute correctly, it refers to into a computer system with malicious intent resulting in loss or damage. While annoying, what Willy on Wheels II did, most likely isn't illegal and its probably a waste of time to pursue anything. Also, I would think you'd open this site up to more attacks by reacting so severely to this. (Just my two cents) Jrssr5 14:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
and apparently I missed the segment below. nevermind. Jrssr5 14:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


I suggest you look into getting Checkuser. This gives you IPs on request.Geo. 00:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

How do I get that?--Aschlafly 00:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Speak to whoever setup this wiki and ask them to enable it, from there you go to User Rights and add it to your username. Geo. 00:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
OK. Will do. Thanks.--Aschlafly 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
ANDREW: The vandal (or someone who claims to be) has contacted me on Wikipedia. Edit can be found here.
I see you've just made an edit. This is to get the nifty "new messages" banner to reappear for you, if it's gone already. --Hojimachongtalk 01:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I read the edit, but he says that he's not Willy on Wheels. You might ask him if he's the Willy on Wheels II who attempted such destruction here. I'm not vindictive and usually I defend people rather than cause prosecutions, but some real remorse is needed in light of such massive destruction.--Aschlafly 01:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
He made some other comments as well, all of which make it obvious that he is Willy on Wheels II who vandalized articles here (he apologized, citing his offenses and username). "Willy on Wheels" is an infamous Wikipedia vandal; that was a somewhat off-topic question, just on the side. --Hojimachongtalk 01:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, let's drop it then, based on his statement. I believe in forgiveness. Thanks much, Hojimachong, first for stopping him, and then for following through.--Aschlafly 01:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Hi-5 for a good day of encyclopedia building. I am off to bed, goodnight. --Hojimachongtalk 02:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Warn CWilson

Would you consider warning CWilson? He continues to vandalize the Earth article, suggesting that Christians believe the world is flat, and citing his "uncle" as a definitive resource. I don't think that is to be encouraged on Conservapedia.--AmesG 14:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


Is there any guidline on Conservapedia similar to Wikipedia's 3RR? Geekman314(contact me) 14:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy & Venona

Thanks Andy. The McCarthy & Venona battles in WP were brutal, and they still are using flawed research methods and other questionable policy violations to suppress valid evidence. I suspect some of the same socks I had trouble with over there may come here with the same agenda. RobS 17:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd fix this but...

I do not know what it is in reference to on the Nobel Prize page is this sentence: "In two cases, the Nobel Prize was denied to the person most responsible for the discovery apparently because they had been critical of the theory of evolution." Discovery of what? Crackertalk 18:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


Is there a way to automatically kick out offensive usernames?--Elamdri 18:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Not that I know of. Would you like SYSOP/admin privileges so you can quash them on site?--Aschlafly 18:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
very much so yes! That would be a big help! It is such a pain to manually fix vandals.--Elamdri 18:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Welcome, Elamdri! You're a SYSOP/admin now. Please block users for obscenity and vandalism immediately, and with infinite duration. Thank you!!--Aschlafly 18:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Will do.--Elamdri 18:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Proposed "commandment:" "Don't copy"

If you get a chance to comment on this proposal I'd appreciate it, because it's my attempt to infer a simple policy statement comments you've made. If you don't want copying of entire articles even from public domain sources, it's important to make that clear, as many people assume it's OK. Dpbsmith 18:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--Aschlafly 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


How is it "liberal bias" to mention the 3000 victims of General Pinochet? This is a well known fact which can easily be verified online - see this, for example.

Is it really anti-conservative to point out the misdemeanours of t dictators? Suppose I was to mention that Hitler killed six million people - would you regard that as "liberal" as well? RonaldReagan 19:12, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

General Pinochet is known target of liberal complaints, even ridiculous prosecution. There is no independent verification of those numbers that I know of. He was in a civil war, and fighting communists daily. People died on both sides. Shall we also say that President Clinton murdered 3000 Bosnians???--Aschlafly 19:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Andrew, are you familiar with the Rettig Report? It was commissioned by President Patricio Aylwin in 1990. The 8-member Chilean commission found that roughly 2,280 people were killed extra-judicially for political reasons. Their deaths had nothing to do with a civil war or any other armed resistance against the government. It's a factual statement, just as it is factual to say that he is directly responsible for Chile enjoying the strong economy they currently possess. --Dave3172 19:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I've posted my understanding of General Pinochet. President Aylwin was his political adversary, who is hardly objective. Feel free, however, to post your views under the "Criticism" section in what I started. Thanks--Aschlafly 21:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Alwin is memeber of the Christian Democratic Party. It is comparable in its stance with other christian democratic parties throughout the world, who are mostly centrist or center-right[2]. When I have to choose between a christian democrat, and a christian dictator, I would side with former. --Order12:45, 14 March 2007 (AEST)
Fine, and maybe he's a great guy. But a political adversary is not objective. A political adversary wants to smear his opponent as much as possible to reduce his political threat. In many countries, the victorious candidate trumps up charges that causes his opponent to be imprisoned or executed, and that's not just to be vindictive. It's to strengthen power.--Aschlafly 21:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
You can't counter the policies of a particular person, Aylwin, by simply dismissing all politicians as corrupt. You might enjoy the thought that some politicians actually try to unify, rather than divide. Before Pinochet came to power, Aylwin was the leader of democratic opposition to Allende, while Pinochet staged a coup to remove Allende. They both opposed the same socialist government, but in a different way. Later he led the democratic opposition against Pinochet. However, he when he became president, Pinochet was allowed to remain partly in power. Pinochet was not overthrown by force as you do suggest. He lost a plebiscite. Pinochet was not executed, nor imprisoned mainly because the reforms that were put in place by Aylwin left Pinochet alone. Aylwin successors tried to prosecute Pinochet, but the were not particularly successful. So, your comment about "in many countries" misses the point. --Order 14:45, 14 March 2007 (AEST)

Banned for obscenity?

Hi, LiberTerryN here, vainly trying to appeal my banning for "obscenity", on the grounds that it's nonsensical. (If I had been banned for "Being a sarcastic pest", I could understand, and it would make your Stalinist moderating policy a bit more obvious to other newbs.) The only things I can think of that I've posted that was even remotely sexual were razzing you in "A Certain Matter of Anatomy", and my article on torture, mentioning one of the more cockamamie charges that witches "confessed" to under torture. If those constituted "obscenity", you might want to add to the Commandments something along the lines of "NO MENTION OF S-E-X WILL BE TOLERATED". (Apparently, you believe that while God created humanity, He saw fit to subcontract out the building of certain body parts to Satan?) Are you ging to ban peopel for posting from the Song of Solomon or the Book of Ezekial, next? That would be crazy...and thus, entirely appropriate for this site. --BobA 21:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We do believe in second chances and if you vow to obey the rules, then I'll let you back in (give me your id if different from above). But if you still disagree, then please find another site for your work. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


I'm slightly confused. It would seem that, when I made a suggestion that I be sysopped so that I could fix the main_page problem (it is still not fixed!), I was told that "maybe someday I could be a sysop." However, when Elandri (no offense, you are a fantastic editor) asks if there is any way to ban users, you offer her/him sysopship without any hesitation? This is confusion, by the way, not criticism. GofG ||| Talk 21:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I feel slightly emasculated GofG..... But i do support GofG receiving SYSOP status.--Elamdri 21:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I apologize, I was avoiding that :(. You are an excellent editor, as I previously stated, and definitely worthy of Sysopship. Sorry :) GofG ||| Talk 21:28, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
GofG, please accept my apologies, I had not give a great deal of thought to this. But I looked again at your edits and your user page, and you don't seem to be entirely on the same page with us yet. By that I'm not referring to ideology as much as purpose. The vast majority of your edits have been on talk pages rather than substance, and many of your comments on talk pages have been to quibble about silly details. On your user page you seem to be debating yourself. You even harassed me about our entry count total!
It's like this. We're trying to move the ball down the field and you're debating everyone else in the huddle, and even yourself! Let's see some progress on substance and then let's revisit your request. Soon, I hope. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not going to argue with you because that would lead to nothing, so I'll just assure you; I do have the encyclopedia's best interests in mind. I would like to know, however, where you consider me to contradict myself on my userpage. And I was not, in any way, harrassing you. I was asking why it was displaying what I then believed to be incorrect information; I'm sure you would have done so if you had believed the information to be incorrect. GofG ||| Talk 22:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
GofG, I don't mean to pick on you. If you can do some more substantive edits/contributions, and stop arguing in the huddle, then I'm sure you'll make a great SYSOP. I don't want SYSOPs to be arguing with each other, by the way.
You're certainly right that I want to correct any incorrect information. I look forward to looking at, and learning from, your future edits. Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Erm... Pantheon was never meant to be an article on the Pantheon in Rome. That's at Pantheon, Rome. A Pantheon means the set of all the gods and goddesses of a particular mythology; it does not refer to the temple. I have fixed this, and redirected Pantheon to my article at Pantheon, Rome. GofG ||| Talk 22:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the excellent edit!--Aschlafly 22:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Hey GofG, referring to earlier, when I said emasculated, I was referring to that you called me a "her" in your original post when I am in reality a dude. Just a little jab ;)--Elamdri 22:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Ban IP?

I think User:AlabamaLlamaFarmer, User:AyiaNapa, and User:AwaitingTheRapture are all the same person, due to their similar page move vandalisms (which were all horribly obscene). Request the IP from the server? A good, ol' fashioned legal threat will scare them half to death, like it did to User:Willy on Wheels II. --Hojimachongtalk 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, we should prosecute him. I'll track down his IP and, unless he apologizes soon, report him to the authorities. Posting obscenity, by the way, is a separate federal crime and there are many prosecutions for internet obscenity in every federal district now.--Aschlafly 22:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Censorship isn't enough, now you guys have to break out the lawyers? I love the free and open exchange of ideas you've got going here. </sarcasm> --BobA 23:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
He might be changing his IP address though.--Elamdri 22:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Your point is taken, it was puerile and offensive, and for that, I apologize unreservedly. I do not agree with what you are doing, but this is not the way to go about it. I am sorry for the offence caused, it is easy (particularly when alcohol is involved) to hide behind the internet and forget that there are real people involved. ExuberantFool 22:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Seems genuine to me. What do you think, Hojimachong?--Aschlafly 22:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Let this one slide. But I'm sick of it. We should at least try to make an example out of the next one, or add a warning on the main page that massive page-move vandalism could lead to legal action. --Hojimachongtalk 22:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, I did post a warning in the rules. I'll put one on the front page also.--Aschlafly 22:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I have the vandal's IP address now. ExuberantFool, what are the first five digits of your IP to confirm that you're the same person as the vandal? You can find your own IP address by going to .--Aschlafly 22:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I have been using varying IP addresses. My current first 5 are 75126, and I believe most of the others used are the same.
OK, we'll drop this, as Hojimachong suggested. Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I like your style. --Hojimachongtalk 23:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I sent you an important email to your AOL account. Hoping you could reply soon

I sent you an important email to your AOL account. I was hoping you could reply soon. Conservative 22:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I replied by email. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Problems uploading pictures

Hello! Intermittently, both Hoch and I are experiencing errors uploading pictures. I was able to upload one as recently as 20 minutes ago, but am unable to now. He complains of the same thing. Do you know why, just out of curiosity?--AmesG 00:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately, I don't know, AmesG. I went around and around with tech support on this and got nowhere. My own expertise is UNIX, and I'm new to this Wiki stuff. But we'll work these glitches out over time. I suggest you use trial and error. Sorry I can't help more right now.--Aschlafly 00:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Are you getting a block message? Geo. 01:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Removing reasons for deletion

Good suggestion. There's no reason to allow vulgarity to show up again. MountainDew 03:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Sysop distribution

There doesn't appear to be much coverage at this time; I'd suggest recruiting some Europeans to pick up the slack when you guys are asleep. Tsumetai 06:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I posted a notice on the Main Page. Thanks.--Aschlafly 09:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


Please contact me. I sent a email yesterday, with my phone.

--TK 07:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately, I haven't been receiving my emails from here, and I'm not sure why. Can't we just discuss this here?--Aschlafly 09:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps you could use my email, from registration, and then we could arrange a method of contact agreeable to you? I worked with Ed Meese. Looks as if you are beseiged, lol. --TK 20:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

18 USC § 1470

I note that Conservapedia is now threatening to punish those in violation of the above-referenced federal statute, presumably by reporting obscene matter to federal prosecutors. Does this mean that Conservapedia now adopts the definition of "obscene" as 18 USC § 1470 has been interpreted by American governmental agencies, or is the definition still subject to the authority of site administrators?

--Huey gunna getcha 10:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

We're going to report the IP address and location of that IP address for users who post obscene messages based on our reasonable view of what is obscene. The company that owns that IP address will also be notified. All authorities will be told that the obscene messages were posted on a website with full notice that the website is used by minors.--Aschlafly 10:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your response, but I don't think you really answered my question. I was wondering if the standard for what constitutes "obscene" material will be that which has developed from the jurisprudence of 18 USC 1470 itself, or if an anomolous, undefined standard is still going to be utilized. This is an issue that has provided me with a significant deal of confusion. When posting that "sex" is an activity engaged in by a married couple for the purpose of reproduction, I was banned for posting obscene material. However, you will not find a prosecutor that would charge me under 18 USC 1470. --Huey gunna getcha 17:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


Do you have a policy on known sockpuppets? [3] RobS 11:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Block 'em. It's in our rules. Thanks.--Aschlafly 11:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm reviewing contribs; but User:AmesG created User:MississippiMud, somewhat of a race-baiting username. AmesG did make a good contribution here [4], Fourteenth Amendment, but reverted original text,
The U.S. Supreme Court has used this Amendment to invent new rights, such as abortion and a separation of church and state, which were never intended by those who drafted or ratified it,
it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.
I'll block the MississippiMud acct which certainly appears abusive, but the other acct I'll leave for you to decide. RobS 12:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I didn't create MississippiMud, and s/he has had good contributions. I would undo it... and my Fourteenth Amendment changes were all sourced to change what was actually incorrect analysis.--AmesG 12:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Can you explain this? [5] RobS 12:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Is it maybe possible that you're confusing "creating the first version of the User Page" with "creating the user"? It's the only possible explanation why one would use that History page as evidence for anything... --Sid 3050 12:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I think that's it. I created the user page insofar as I posted the first comment, but it's foolish to say that I "created the user" from that. Also note that MississippiMud and I make contributions at exactly the same time. I am a very talented individual, but I still cannot operate two computers at once!!--AmesG 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Ok; so the question remains MississippiMuds username; I'll take a closer look at contribs. RobS 13:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
So there's some good contribs; but this creeation of the FEMA article for example [6] I wouldn't even isn't consider partisan, it's just simply trolling. RobS 14:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
You're not asking if the person deserves a username; you're asking if ex ante your ban decision the person deserved to be banned. Don't confuse the issues. She may have questionable practices but they wouldn't have resulted in a ban in and of themselves.--AmesG 15:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Upon further review, there are several good contributions and I'm of a mind to unblock him and give him another chance, if I can just figure out how. However, using the tragic suffering of Hurricane Katrina victims in the FEMA article as an attack piece is appalling. RobS 15:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I think you can do it via Special:Ipblocklist. :) --Sid 3050 16:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. I unblocked him. We'll give him another chance, but that FEMA article wasn't just a naked attack, it mocked the suffering of the victims. RobS 16:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Criticism of Michael Brown in itself is not bannable, considering that even conservatives like Michelle Malkin (my favorite writer, admittedly) did it. Doing so in the sarcastic fashion that he did is not, of course, acceptable. MountainDew 16:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
The article he created told us absolutly nothing about FEMA and comparison with Hiroshima victims with the invaluable experience of a Presidential appointee was simply trolling, IMO. But he does have other good contribs elsewhere that perhaps need to be checked for veracity. RobS 16:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obscenity, AGAIN

umm i wanted to add an acronym that if fully spelled out has 1 cuss word in it but it REALLY is part of the acronym and conveys the true meaning of the situation and its not meant to be inflamatory, just part of the explaination. (I.E WTSHTF) can cuss words be used in this regard?

No, please don't do that. Would you see something like that in a real encyclopedia? Our standards are just as high. The English language has many uplifting words to say what you mean. Please use them. Thank you.--Aschlafly 11:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
okay i'll just use the word "stuff" instead... wally
I think Aschlafly has a very boring encyclopedia. --Scrap 01:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

American vs British/Australian English

As I grew up in the UK & lived for a long time in Australia prior to recently moving to the US, any articles I contribute/edit will likely be on British & Australian topics - is there a guidance as to when British vs American spellings should be used? (eg, it would seem foolish to describe the current UK government as the 'Labor' instead of 'Labour' Party.) Also, is there any guidance as to who is considered 'notable' - while I don't want to go down the wikipedia route of lengthy entries on everyone, a number of people (e.g. former UK Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath) have no entry at all.

British spelling on British and Australian topics is fine, particularly for names. The objection is merely to insisting on British spelling where one would expect, due to the majority of the readership or the nature of the topic, American spelling instead.--Aschlafly 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Reporting me to be banned"

Excuse me, I know that you are a major sysop. What are the standards for being banned? I have repeatedly edited Iraq War to disinclude liberal bias and even responded positively to the accusation that I shouldn't delete but replace the biased text with more reliable, factual sources (which I have). Why should I be banned for that, especially here? Affirmlife 13:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Affirmlife, you're nowhere close to being banned. Your liberal adversaries are close to being warned. One made a sarcastic entry that will result in a warnikng right now by me. Bring a SYSOP into your dispute if the changes and reverts on the Iraq War become too frequent and aggravating. I suggest User:TimSvendsen. He can take action that includes blocking users and locking the page.--Aschlafly 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I am going to watch all Iraq pages, and sanction as necessary. Geo. 00:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

The Way International

I just wanted you to be aware that there's somebody who's been working on an article on The Way International portraying it as a mainstream Christian organization, but this organization is widely considered to be a cult, so keep an eye out on this page. MountainDew 15:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


"Minors under 16 years use this site. Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470. Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. We will trace your IP address if necessary. "

Do you not think this would be better to read "could be punishable" It is up to the courts to decide the outcome. Bill.

It would be great if we could just take the law into our own hands and punish them ourselves in the conservapedia penitentiory! --Raytrotter 18:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


I've noticed that we don't have a logo. Out of boredom (kinda) I designed this: Conservapedia-logo2.png. When placed in the top left, it would still display the sand waves under it, not just white. What do you think? GofG ||| Talk 17:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I really like the idea of using the cross as the logo for conservapedia. I think it really makes it clear what views we tolerate and which ones are not welcome.--Raytrotter 18:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I am against the idea of a cross as part of the logo. This isn't christianapedia, it's conservapedia. I understand that the site supports Christian ideas and beliefs, but I think a better logo could be designed. ColinR 18:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with ColinR on this. This is in fact Conservapedia not a christian website.MatteeNeutra 18:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Under Talk:Main_Page someone suggested something "obviously christian" I believe, so that's what I put. Of course, the icon is changable. Maybe to an elephant, to represent the Republican Party of the USA? Or a waving American flag? GofG ||| Talk 18:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Hasn't this already been done? JamesK 18:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have a good idea. Have an elephant with a flag in its trunk and a big cross painted on its side. That would include all our sembals.--Raytrotter 18:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You miss the point entirely. This wiki claims to be the "unbiased" information source to replace Wikipedia. By putting a logo that affiliates to ANY group it is destroying that message.MatteeNeutra 18:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but everyone who spends five minutes on this site KNOWS that's a load of codswallop. This place is trying to be as far-right as possible to cancel out the all-encompassing Liberal Bias found in science, the mass media, Wikipedia, the Internet and Burma-Shave signs, so you might as well just quit trying to pretend otherwise and glory in it. Your critics already know it, and your target customers won't care. --Scrap 01:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I support the idea of a flag. I'm personally against an elephant, or any icon of the Republican Party. Plenty of conservatives aren't Republican. Take U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D, Georgia). I think a flag and text or just a simple logo with only "conservapedia" would be great. ColinR 18:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The logo is still open for debate and refinement. I defer to the consensus. There have been some spectacularly good designs suggested by students. My own preference would be not to identify to closely with a particular group, such as the Republican Party's symbol.
This discussion should continue on the talk page for the logo.--Aschlafly 18:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmmm . . . ok. Maybe I am confused. I thought this site was for conservatives to be able to right about things that were from a conservative viewpoint (pro God, anti-liberal, anti-Welfare, etc.). So shouldn't we be proud of our sembols and not trie to hide them?--Raytrotter 18:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

If that comment was directed at me, I'm proud of our symbols. But "conservative" is stronger and broader and more meaningful than the symbol for the Republican Party.--Aschlafly 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I dont think we should because there are conservetive Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buhddist. I think the cross would give us more problems with the mediea and stuff and might only make a bad name for us and might hurt us from gaining other conservetive. The server is located in the "Land of Opprotunity" right? so i think leave the cross out and the stuff to do with the Republicans. --Will N. 19:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd be against using the US flag or any symbol like the elephant which would be meaningless outside the US - granted most users will be in the US, but there will be enough British, Canadian, European etc users that there seems no reason to exclude them unnecessarily. I also agree with Will N above, that the cross will lead to some natural supporters feeling excluded from the site - despite what the media says, most of the material on this site is not religious.Tracy C Copeland 19:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe a logo could be designed on the ichthys? Crackertalk 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

We all know that the media has a "big mouth" so the cross would put us on the spot light. I also, (one of the first to belong here) would hate to see Mr.Schlafly to be under such pressure from the media and stuff. He has enough already with his law firm and his family to take care of. Just i think the cross should really stay out, i fear the media on a religous perspective and a consulter. --Will N. 19:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How about a white star on a blue background as per the Texas flag/the USAF emblem? As it (obviously) also appears on the US flag it would hopefully satisfy those who want something specifically American, whilst not being so US-centric that it alienates non US users?Tracy C Copeland 20:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Like the concept, but sounds a bit too much like a mix between Israel and the United Nations flags. --Hojimachongtalk 20:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Redirect Template

Is there any reason there is no redirect template? I'm trying to fix the article Genesis by including {{Redirect|Genesis|the rock band Genesis|Genesis (Rock Band)}} but it doesn't work, instead it just puts up a link for an uncreated redirect template. I'm pretty new to wiki formatting so I am clueless as how to fix this. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ColinR 18:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I use #REDIRECTlink for redirects. Works well for me. Thanks.
Genesis already had a redirect to the Bible, so that wouldn't work for disambiguations. Now that Genesis appears to have it's own entry, my issue might have been resolved. ColinR 18:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)