User talk:Aschlafly/Archive21

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Conservative Party article

Andy - I didn't delete the material. I put it in a separate The Conservative Party of New York State article of its own because it seemed confusing to have it in the same article as the British Conservative party. The other changes I made were for accuracy.--Britinme 22:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

God bless you for that NY Conservative Party entry. But I learned some things from the comments you deleted about the British Conservative Party, such as the British parlance and the RINO analogy. Can you improve rather than delete?--Aschlafly 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
The problem was Andy that those were very inaccurate. I know what is meant by a RINO and that just doesn't apply to David Cameron. His views are very representative of mainstream Conservative thought in the UK - political discourse in the UK is generally to the left of the US, and politicians who are seen as quite liberal here in the US would be quite comfortable in the British Conservative party. Some of your more right-wing politicians here simply would not get elected in the UK so any party leader who heads in that direction is on a hiding to nothing. Nor is David Cameron a centrist conservative by American standards. I think what the original writer may have meant to say is that he is centrist by British standards rather than a centrist Conservative. However, this may be a matter of opinion. Another problem American conservatives have in encountering the British conservative party is that you all think of the NHS as 'socialized medicine', which is absolutely not how it is seen in the UK by any political party, even those on the far right by British standards. There is absolutely no support in the UK for an American-style health care system - only about 10% of Brits have private medical insurance. Having now lived under both systems I can see advantages and disadvantages in both systems, but given a choice I would go for the NHS. Issues such as gun control and abortion are also seen very differently in the UK - there is no lobby for the right to bear arms in the UK, and there is general support for abortion, although there is a growing body of opinion that the legal limit should be brought down to 20 weeks from its current 24 [1]. On the question of prayer in public schools, of course we already have that - by law, every school has an 'act of corporate worship of a broadly Christian character' every day, although parents are free to ask for their child to be withdrawn from this, and religious education is one of the four compulsory subjects every child has to study up to age 16. Our churchgoing rates are, however, far lower than those of the US, quite possibly because of this! I hope this is helpful to you - sorry this is so long. --Britinme 23:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, this is informative. I thought John Major was a social conservative, no? I.e., didn't he favor less taxes, a right to bear arms, oppose abortion, etc.? I thought he was pretty similar to American conservatives. Maybe we need a good entry on John Major. Maybe we already have one. I'll look. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Lower taxes, yes - this is something British and American conservatives have in common. Right to bear arms, no - this is a non-issue in the UK, where the handgun ban is well supported, and people generally point to the difference in the rate of murders in the US and UK as a reason to keep it. Right to abortion - as far as I know, the stance of most of the leaders of the Conservative party has been similar to that of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney - even if personally opposed, they respect the law as it stands and regard it as a matter of choice for the woman concerned and her doctors. It's hard to compare though, because in the US the legal basis of abortion law is right to privacy, and in the UK it is a matter of gaining the consent of two doctors. There are British Conservatives such as Anne Widdecombe who are totally opposed to abortion, but her stance does not have a great deal of support from the public. It is not nearly as much of an issue in the UK as the US. American conservative attitudes on social issues do not always translate well to a British or European setting - there is more agreement over economic issues. Conservapedia has an article on John Major, but I am unclear as to how accurate it is because of this American/British confusion. If I have time, I'll have a look at it. --Britinme 17:10, 7 May 2007 (EDT)


Regarding harvard referencing, {{hnb|Smith|2005}}. Not sure if this is okay, but see here: Smithsonian Controversy. Based on the remarks here, I think this is okay, but whether or not it is allowed is beyond my ability to understand. I don't know what you meant by "expressive material." You may have to delete some or all of the templates I added if they are expressive, as I am not a copyright lawyer. If you do, please also revert the Smithsonian Controversy back to this version to get rid of the use of the use of the hnb. Thanks. HoG 19:02, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I confess that I don't fully understand this, even after looking at your links. As best I can tell, these templates are simply footnote formatting. I don't see a copyright problem with that. When there is essentially only one way to do something, then it is functional rather than expressive, and copyright does not apply. For example, no one can copyright how names are listed in a phone book, because the alphabetical order is the only way it can be (sensibly) done.--Aschlafly 21:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Okay, great. Shall I write up a tutorial on how to use these harvard referencing templates in articles? HoG 22:35, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Here is a tutorial for using the new harvard referencing system: User_talk:HeartOfGold/HarvardReferencing User:HeartOfGold/HarvardReferencing I should add that somebody should lock those templates. HoG 22:53, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Wow, that's fantastic!! I'll lock it now. Thanks much.--Aschlafly 22:57, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Woops, I meant you should lock the templates, not the tutorial:) The templates may become a target of hackers:) Sorry for not being clear. Could you unlock the tutorial:) HoG 22:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Done. Sorry! Where are the templates that I should lock? Or are you referring to new templates that editors will create?--Aschlafly 23:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Andy, I'm not sure either whether your reference to "expressive material" answers the question. Some templates are very simple affairs (e.g. {{!}}), and there is really no other way that they can be done. However, others are far more complex, and could be done in multiple ways. I'm not talking about the output from the template—that would be a simple, non-copyrightable, Harvard or other type of reference—but about the code behind it. Source code for computer software is copyrightable, I'm pretty certain, and complex templates are in effect a small example of computer source code. So there are two questions in my mind. First, are template codes sufficiently similar to software to also be copyrightable, and second, are Wikipedia templates covered by the GDFL(?) licence? Philip J. Rayment 23:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
HeartOfGold, please don't rush into using this template too often; I'd like to discuss it with you a bit before it's too late. I won't be able to do that for several more hours, though. And I don't think locking it is that urgent, either, and perhaps not even necessary. But I can do that when I get a chance, if you'd like, Andy. Philip J. Rayment 23:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Okay. Sorry. I was kind of worried about that too, but as I said, I am not an attorney. I guess I could look up how to program this up and generate the code from from scratch to avoid copyright issues. Regarding the tutorial, should I keep working on that, under the assumption that we will at some point have code to parse it (either generated here, or copied from elsewhere?) HoG 23:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
  • The templates should be treated like the images, and locked as a matter of policy, IMO. This does not stop them from being used, just stops them from being altered. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I concur. However, in light of a couple of server crashes when I was editing content relying on these templates, I suspect the templates may be dangerous at this point. Consequently, I reverted the article that made use of them, pending further investigation. Currently, the article is using a poor-man's harvard referencing system that does not rely on templates. See section below for more information. HoG 02:11, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

User page a person's castle?

While I am trying to find the exact reference, didn't you say at some point that a person's user page is his or her castle and they (and presumably they alone) should have control over it? --Mtur 23:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that Mtur is refering to the "retired" template that is being put on some blocked user's pages. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:07, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Mtur, does Tim explain your point there? If someone leaves his castle, we need to board it up!--Aschlafly 23:10, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
It is one thing to protect it with the idea that the original user isn't going to be able to revert/report vandalism on their own page. It is another to put a "condemned" sign on it when the person is on vacation for a week or two. In this case, when the ban is over, it puts additional work on the user to revert the previous change. It also makes it difficult for others to read the material that was there previously that may be a useful jumping off page and stance on issues. This is very much what Conservative was bringing up the issue that sysops dictated what was on a person's page, not the person themselves at Wikipedia. If this is a valid complaint, it is being repeated here. --Mtur 23:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
It would be more apropriate to post at the top of their page (without blanking it) the length of their block and the reason. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Fine with me. We're not trying to embarrass anyone.--Aschlafly 23:26, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I completely agree with Andy. We do indeed blank pages for users blocked for insults, disruption, etc. It isn't a valid argument to say that one click, by the user, is too much a hardship on them. If a person has poison on their page, contrary to our guidelines [[2]]Civility, there isn't a good reason to leave it for others to find. So long as users follow the rules, there isn't a problem, no? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:06, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I think it's a great idea to add the template and a reason/diff at the top of the page instead of blanking so people can be aware of what's going on. I've said it before, but if you want subversion action to end, users need to be aware what constitutes "bad things" so they can knowingly avoid repeating a mistake. Jrssr5 10:28, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Much as some might think everything is their business, users who violate our rules know what they have done. "Bad things" are violations of the Commandments and Guidelines. They are public. Reasons are given in the block and available for all to see, so there is no reason to post it on the users page, other than the fact they are blocked. When their block ends, the page is reverted as it was, safe and sound, free from possible vandalism. We take their pages seriously, and without locking it, we cannot be responsible for possible damage. We cannot read people's minds either. If they wish to discuss the reasons for their block, in greater detail than given in the block itself, that is their own private business. Not yours, or mine. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I must have misread Andy's agreement with Tim (CPAdmin1) when he said to leave the page as is, but add the template, length and reason for blocking. Jrssr5 09:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes. We don't have a template to my knowledge that gives a reason. We do have one that gives the length. For the reasons above, I wouldn't ever post a reason there. If Andy, or another Sysop wishes to do so, it isn't my business. Lots depends on the circumstances as well. Minor infractions I deal with differently than someone blocked longer than a week. Someone attacking other users from their pages, I wouldn't leave it for others to see. That is just common sense, no? If you have other questions, please use my talk page, not Andy's. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I created this one. I think that we should give a reason for users that have been around for a while. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 10:08, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

This User has been Blocked By [[User:]] for a length of length because Reason

  • You have been asked to discuss Sysop business privately, no? Once again, the reason for the block is actually listed with the block, as you well know, Tim. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)


A sock of edittext posted Essay:One Nation‎. Do you want to delete this?Bohdan

never mind. its deleted.Bohdan


How does one become an admin around here? Thanks. HoG 00:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Basically by improving the site and demonstrating a commitment to its success. Our Sysops are a small and dedicated group and we are always looking for new people to join us. We have Sysops from all across the political spectrum. You might take a look at the numerous contributions by other Sysops over a period of time, including my own, to see what we're looking for.--Aschlafly 01:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
On that issue, I note that you may have overlooked me as a potential sysop. --Horace 01:29, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Hey, I asked first:) Seriously, I have the technical skills to help make this site even better than it already is, and feel that I will get along just fine without abusing any authority (as occurs on other wikis). I would love to see this place kick WP's you know what. Please keep an eye on me. HoG 02:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
  • As Horace well knows, it is one of those jobs you are asked to fill. In other words, you'll know it when you're recognized by Andy's post appearing on your discussion page, saying you are one. ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:32, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I would like to again point out my commitment to bettering this site, which has also gone unnoticed, despite my numerous substantial edits. In fact, I no longer seem to merit a response, despite work on Richard Nixon and Ethanol which I feel was quite valuable. Flippin 12:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
It is perhaps due to your many statements that you oppose the purpose of this site that you have been overlooked as a potential sysop. --Ed Poor 12:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

<unindent>Well, I apologize for opening a can of worms. In any event, you guys can ask me if or when you decide you want me. Regarding people who make contributions to this site, and go unnoticed, such as Flippin (I have not reviewed his contributions but assume he is doing good work and that Flippin would like a little acknowledgment), is there a method for other contributors to recognize such work--as a way to let them know their good work is not going unnoticed. A little recognition can go a long ways. HeartOfGold 12:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Can you point to examples where I have voiced "real" opposition to the stated purpose of this site? I can show numerous examples of edits I've made to strengthen the site, including reverting vandalism. If I were opposed to the purpose of the site, I would allow vandalism to occur wherever I found it. Flippin 14:03, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
And by the way, I think Nathan Tay is doing just that (vandalizing) as I write this. Flippin 14:05, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Vandal alert!!!!!!


Earlier today I redid the archives so you wouldn't have a big ugly blue box in the first section; the upper-right corner of your page now has a fixed blue box with a link; what do you think? --Hojimachongtalk 01:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

It's fantastic! Thanks, Hoji!--Aschlafly 02:17, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I recommend you delete harvard templates

I reverted the article using them. Today, while editing, the server seemed to crash twice. I am not sure if this is normal but it might be because of these templates I added and used. So, until I figure that out in a sandbox, I would recommend deleting the templetes. Besides, there is an unresolved question on whether or not the source code to generate the templates is copyrighted. I think I might be able to do it better and in a manner that is less computationally intensive then the wikipedia templates anyway. If these templates were the cause of the crashes today, please accept my apologies...I was just trying to help HoG 01:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I didn't notice the system crashing, and I think the copyright issue is exaggerated because the templates seem functional rather than expression to me. But if you think you can do the templates a better way, then please do!--Aschlafly 02:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Hmn, well I feel better. Maybe it was my browser then? It happened in IE and Mozilla, though--two different browsers. Server seemed to be out for about 5 minutes each time (though I could ping it). Oh well, I'll keep looking into it, because I would like to have a simple way of doing harvard referencing. HoG 02:24, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I think it is a problem with my browsers, upon further investigation. Perahps a time out problem. If I close and reopen, all is fine. HoG 02:50, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
HoG, I mentioned that I wanted to discuss this with you further; I'll do so at User talk:HeartOfGold/HarvardReferencing. Philip J. Rayment 05:40, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

My RfA

I have attempted to set up an RfA, however I have been unable to initiate the right code so that it all reads properly, as seen in the last edits of my sandbox... User:Niandra/sandbox. I will include the general idea of the RfA and could you please place it on the Conservapedia:Requests for adminship|requests for adminship page, if necessary. Thanks.

"I was previously a sysop of Conservapedia, however I voluntarily dropped the position at the time since I was unable to properly carry out sysop duties due to other university and extra-curricular activities associated with music. As with my first RfA, I am mainly here to help in my timezone (Australian Eastern Standard Time) with vandalism. I understand if there are enough sysops already in place, although I would gladly take some the duties if sysop status is granted" Niandratalk 10:50, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Fixed. Niandratalk 11:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for returning, Niandra, and your request to become a Sysop again. I'll forward it to other Sysops for consideration.--Aschlafly 13:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Is that how these are decided, or do you just decide? I've had my name out there for a while--making productive edits--and you have repeatedly ignored me. Is it just an ideological difference, or do you only choose sysops from a preferred list of editors? Flippin 13:50, 8 May 2007 (EDT)


Seeing as though my previous question about the Bisexuality article were ignored, here I am asking again:

Why was the article on Bisexuality deleted? It was a valuable, well written, properly sourced article which had the potential to develop into a very interesting piece. It was an awful lot better than the current page Bisexual which is far too short making it lack information and detail. I would like to see the original article returned (if thats possible) or at least an explanation.

Cheers! MatteeNeutra 13:03, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

This topic is neither educational nor enlightening, nor consistent with our rules. Conservapedia is not a place for anything and everything. Don't expect to engage in a lengthy debate about this sexual topic on this site either. Wikipedia welcomes this kind of stuff if you need an online place for it.--Aschlafly 13:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
If I may repeat what is written in Commandment number three: Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language. Bisexuality is not family-friendly; it is sexual in nature, and not normal in practice. Since this website can be accessed by children, such content is not going to be allowed here. I don't show that stuff to my kids at all, and neither am I going to allow my kids to see anything like that on a site that we all edit in. It's bad enough such content is allowed in Wikipedia; it's not going to be allowed here. Karajou 13:19, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
But you're ok with them viewing an article on homosexuality? I'm confused by this double standard. Jrssr5 13:31, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
And on top of that, you beat me in answering him, Andy! Karajou 13:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
So... Why do we have an article about homosexuality then? it is more family-friendly? Timppeli 13:24, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
That entry is family-friendly.--Aschlafly 13:27, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Just for clarification, was just the current article on bisexuality unsuitable or is it the whole subject of bisexuality that must be avoided as Karajou stated: " Bisexuality is not family-friendly; it is sexual in nature, and not normal in practice. Since this website can be accessed by children, such content is not going to be allowed here" Timppeli 13:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Timppeli, I don't know why you're repeatedly asking me on my talk page. I don't make these decisions. We have the rules and 26 Sysops to enforce those rules. Really, our rules are not that complex and if want to challenge them, then there is a discussion page for that.
I think the current entry is acceptable but anything more would be a waste of time and likely a violation of our rules. Now I'm going to return to doing productive entries. Please take your discussion elsewhere, and as I said Wikipedia will likely welcome your edits on this topic. Thank you.--Aschlafly 14:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Actually, im not sure what you meant by repeatedly asking, as i hardly have asked anything in here, and if these pages aren't for asking clarification for the rules, then im not sure where to go. Following is just an suggestion, and i dont expect an answer as your time seams to be valuable, but mayby the rules should be made more detailed to avoid continues debates and questions on what actually is "legal" here and what isn't. To be honest, your last answer didn't really give me an idea if it is appropriate for me to expand the bisexuality article or not. But ill take the subject to some SYSOP with time to spare, Thanks for your time. Timppeli 15:26, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

If you checked the deletion log, you can satisfy your curiosity (if that's what it was), just I did. The sysop who deleted Bisexuality gave this reason: inaccurate, need fresh start.

One of the inaccuracies was that bi. "includes" het. and hom. - actually, homosexual acts are perversions, and heterosexuality is the norm. The norm should not be classed in with a perversion of the norm.

On the other hand, if we have an article on Government, it could describe good governance in which the rulers place the welfare of the people above their own - as well as evil dictatorships and totalitarian regimes in which the ruling class exploits the masses for their own benefit.

If you understand how bad homosexuality is, you can help me write about this. But if your question was merely rhetorical, than you probably aren't even going to read this answer! ;-) --Ed Poor 16:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Well... I read it allright, that isn't the problem. But can't say i agree that homosexuality is necesarily a bad thing. So seams that instead of co-writing it, we might end up mostly debating about the subject. Ill take a look at the article tomorrow, or later today. Lets see if we can find some common ground. (oh, and dont know where i can look for historyes of deleted articles?) Timppeli 16:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I would suggest that criterion on whether or not Conservapedia has an article on a particular subject such as homosexuality or bisexuality is a combination of family suitability and the importance of addressing the subject. Homosexuality might be just as undesirable as bisexuality as a topic, but due to homosexuality's higher public profile, an article on that subject is unavoidable, but for bisexuality it is avoidable. That's just my thoughts on it.
Deleted articles are listed under Special pages (see the toolbox on the left), Logs, and select Deletion Log in the drop-down box.
Philip J. Rayment 06:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Very well said, Philip.--Aschlafly 09:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Some non-crisis stuff to ease the flow around here

Hey, figured I'd insert some non-crisis stuff onto your talk page, kinda like a commercial break so people can refill their popcorn supplies. ;)

I haven't been online as much as I would've liked (I only get to access this place from work, but in exchange for this fringe benefit, they expect me to actually, like, work once in a while, too. :P), but I managed to sneak in some good additions during my online bursts:

Created articles on factoring and adverse selection and also made a major edit to your time value of money article - it looked somewhat odd without the "Present and Future Value" equation, considering that it's fairly important for various investment decisions.

Thanks for tuning in, we now return to the usual crises requiring sysop attention. ;) --JLindon 14:25, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Eep, thanks for the signature reminder, TK! :) And I also notice that fringe benefit is a redlink... let's change that. --JLindon 14:31, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Those are excellent entries! Thanks much.--Aschlafly 14:42, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
JLindon already created one ... I suggest the two be merged and the other redirected. Jrssr5 15:11, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I think there is nothing in my short article that's not in TK's version (except maybe one or two examples). So a sysop can delete my article (fringe benefit) and move Fringe Benefit to fringe benefit (since it's not a proper noun and should thus not have a capital "B"). Nice work, though, TK! :) --JLindon 15:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Argh, and I just realized that Andrew already created fringe benefits (plural title) a few days ago. (Talk about re-inventing the wheel! Quite embarrassing... *buries face in hands*) But from the look of it, it can also be deleted and replaced with a redirect to fringe benefit since its content is also covered by TK's version. Doing a "soft delete" (=simply replacing the content with a redirect) of it now in anticipation of the delete+move suggested above. --JLindon 15:28, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
No problem, just let me know when you're done and what rearranging of pages you would like me to do, and I'll do it.--Aschlafly 15:30, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Be my guest. The politic solution would be to keep the bosses, IMO.  ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:31, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
That's usually the way that ensures continued employment, but Andrew strikes me as the type of boss who acknowledges a better version and won't mind us replacing his version (...I hope... :P). For whichever sysop gets here first:
  1. Delete fringe benefit (my version) Done!
  2. Move Fringe Benefit (TK's version) to fringe benefit Done!
  3. No need to fiddle with fringe benefits (Andrew's version) - I replaced the content with a redirect to fringe benefit just now. --JLindon 15:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Andrew! :) --JLindon 15:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Excellent effort!!! Much better than mine. You're just the type of editor who makes this project so worthwhile. Please stay and enter and discuss as much as you like.  :-) --Aschlafly 15:42, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

User MontyZuma

Gentlemen. First let me apologise for signing on again under a new name after having been blocked. I am forced to do this as there appears there is no other means of discussion other than emailing individuals and sysop DanH appears to have a vendetta against me.

If you feel that this is cluttering up your user talk page then go ahead and delete it but at least have the honor to read it first.

I discovered that my account was blocked after several articles had been deleted all without the common courtesy of leaving a warning or expressing a reason on my user talk page or on the talk pages of the subject. I could have written this on my own talk page but the chances of any of you visiting would, I imagine, have been almost nil. This is not the sort of high-handed or rude behavior that would expect from a supposedly “conservative” web-site. In Britain courtesy is seen as the natural domain of the educated conservative.

I would like to congratulate user Karajou on his mature reaction by posting an apology on my web-page after he discovered that he had been hasty in error and actually researched what I had written. What we have here is ignorance masquerading as decency – the intellectual equivalent of Victorians covering up table legs for fear that they may offend ladies. In fact on User:Middle Man’s user page I found this quote from that great Christian, Martin Luther King Jr.

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

Nothing that I wrote could be construed as obscene or untrue. As I pointed out to DanH (Matthew 7, vv3-5) any obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. Anyone reading my conribution would have been more informed and have had a greater understanding of other cultures. Initially, I ‘’’was’’’ unaware of the use of faggot (or its diminutive fag) as a pejorative term for a homosexual. It is certainly not in common currency in Britain where a ‘’’faggot’’’ is a delicious regional meat dish and a ‘’’fag’’’ is common parlance for a cigarette. It certainly is a dereliction of duty for a supposedly “trustworthy” encyclopedia to ignore the real meaning of puerile slang; surely it is preferable to present the wholesome version rather than leave the inquisitive to venture into the broader internet with all its attendant perils. Let’s face it entries for “Dick Cheney”, “George Bush” and “Beaver” manage to get through without being blocked.

Banning me for a month is just ridiculous, I am back here already, but in fairness it is solely to state my case as I will not make any further contributions under a pseudonym. I have visited almost 90 countries in this world, appreciate the good points of other cultures and like to regard myself as worldly and broadminded. Relying on the narrow-minded views of single sysop to instigate a block without first investigating the facts for yourself does not seem like the hallmark of a professional lawyer. It matters not to me whether you block me for a month, for I surely will not wait so long to resume contributions. If Conservapedia is to develop as a valuable resource then it should be encouraging people like me rather than fascist thought control. When you undermine the meaning of words then you undermine the ability for rational and constructive thought as well as that pillar of the constitution, freedom of speech. MontyZuma

Powerful and I agree to the unanning of him.--Will N. 18:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I, then, apologize for my haste as well. DanH 18:14, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Well said Dan, I trust you will follow up on your humility. Erasmus 18:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)


Should be blocked. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 17:06, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Probably right, but what's your evidence?--Aschlafly 17:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

New Sysop Contest

I just announced this on the front page.[3]--Aschlafly 17:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Sounds like a great idea to encourage creation of new articles and productive editing! DanH 17:14, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Nice idea!!!! --Will N. 17:29, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

That is great:) What may I ask is the criteria for determining the best editor?--TimS 17:34, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

It's like the top choice in the NFL draft. There is no set rule about who should be number one. It's a variety of factors here: quality, quantity, insight, overall improvement, etc. TimS and Will N., you've both done good things and I'll make sure you're considered.--Aschlafly 19:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
This should be... "interesting". I have the dumb feeling that this will end either in conflict or in escalation, but I don't have the time to consider the various aspects right now. However, it gave me a few good ideas for new articles to create this week, so not all is lost (for me) ;) If anything, it should be an interesting case study. --JLindon 19:51, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh, by the way... this edit removed an entire section of this page. I'm not sure if it was an editing accident or not, though. If it was intended, feel free to silently remove this message. Just thought I'd leave a note here in case it was an accident. :) --JLindon 19:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

analysis of this wiki's alleged bias

You guys probably get a lot of vandalism because of your supposed bias. Though I agree, I am not here to vandalize. I am a firm believer in logic. I will prove, in the paragraphs below, that this website, because of its nature, is more biased than Wikipedia.

First of all, the definition of bias is an impartial judgment, or a judgment not based on fact. The bias of a wiki comes from the bias of its users, right? Here at Conservapedia you argue that Wikipedia is liberally biased, since (you claim) the majority of its users are more liberal than conservative. This may be true, and I will agree that there is a SMALL amount of bias in Wikipedia. However, your ridiculous solution is many times more biased than Wikipedia could ever hope to be. Allow me to explain: Wikipedia, which presents information on evolution and other non-Christian themes can NOT be said to be biased in this respect, since these articles are (a) only EXPLAINING these theories, and (b) presenting them as scientific theories since they are based on FACT, not belief. Your wiki shows more favoritism towards creationism, which, though it may be a scientific theory, is presented as truth, not theory. Also, your wiki tries to stamp out any liberal edits or even scientific ideas that conflict with your precious Christian beliefs. Wikipedia may block out conservative views (though I doubt it), but only because the majority of its users do not agree with them, not because the institution makes deliberate attempts to do so. For example, users with liberal-related usernames or even suspicious username are blocked without any legitimate reason. (I tested this hypothesis several times, creating accounts with liberal-sounding or suspicious names such as ???—in all cases I was blocked before even making an edit. Go ahead an look it up, if you like—??? was blocked only minutes after creation, by none other than Aschlafly. (You, I mean.) No reason for the block was given, unless you count an apostrophe as a reason.) You even take this to the extreme, by only allowing account creation at certain times to discourage non-Americans from joining. That’s prejudice, pure and unrefined. Also, a wiki consists of the collective knowledge of its users, right? Like an encyclopedia, a wiki is a collection of factual information. However, what makes a wiki factually accurate is that all of its users analyze information and come to a consensus. This is EXACTLY how it works over at Wikipedia. Here, though, the admins and who ever else controls this project determine which views (that is, which scientific views, i.e. creationism vs. evolution), meaning that there will NEVER be a consensus, because there is only one side of the argument that is allowed to come to the debate. (The talk pages, that is.) In addition, the more users a wiki has usually means the more accurate it is because there are more opinions that meet to form a consensus. Here, though, you have so little people and because of the aforementioned administrative bias I would say that even your factual accuracy can be questioned. Of course, it’s not entirely your fault that you are so small. (But don’t try to argue by saying “oh, were not to small—look at the numbers of edits, articles, and page views!” Wikipedia’s main page alone gets over 3 million views PER DAY.) Nonetheless, I am quite impressed with your “Examples of Bias in Wikipedia” page. However, many of the points are references to specific articles. Please remember than any wiki is a work in progress—you can’t expect an article to ever be perfectly accurate unless it is featured and protected, and even then, bias always happens. That’s the nature of a wiki. Therefore, to point out errors in an incomplete article is like pointing out flaws in an unfinished painting. (On a more critical note, I would like to add that that article is one of the longest and most edited in your wiki. Odd that such a critical and slanderous article is so focused on, and that there is not an article or section that presents the other side of the argument.) Conservapedia also does something that Wikipedia does not do: stresses a political viewpoint, and one that is mostly American-based. Many of your links are to sites with conservative slant, and yet there are none with a liberal slant. Even more obvious than this are the American flag logo and the fact that it says on the Main Page in bold “A conservative encyclopedia you can trust.”

To summarize: I see no problem with an opinionated wiki. But I DO see a problem with an opinionated wiki presented as fact, which is what you have here. Your policies, when compared with Wikipedia’s, are much more xenophobic and much less forgiving. You stress a political viewpoint, which is an obvious indicator of bias. Of course, I’m not trying to persuade you to change your ways—the wiki is built around this very bias. But I do hope that what is printed here is never accepted as fact.

So go ahead and block me (again). It will only further prove my point. Or, try to argue, if you like. I do love a debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychohistorian (talk)

I did block user "???", and would block it again. Don't call yourself a question mark or edit an encyclopedia with that name here. This is a serious project.
At least you admit Wikipedia has a bias, although you downplay it. It's a greater bias than you allow, and I have over 40 examples illustrating it at Bias in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia does try very hard to boost its traffic, but that's a flaw rather than an asset. Gossip, obscenity, silly cross-links, etc., boost its rankings in search engines, the source of most of its visitors. Not here, where most of our traffic is from people who visited the site and returned here first, liked it, and returned without using search engines.--Aschlafly 19:21, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Andy, keep creating articles and content. Don't get bogged down with messages like these. It is content and not wrangling with liberals that is going to build up Conservapedia. Conservative 19:42, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

The above user with the lengthy rant was Sheldon1 (on Wikipedia), and he's still complaining that he can't come into someone else's house and do what he pleases. That's the gist of what he's saying. Karajou 19:40, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Whomever the user is, I pointed him to the forum for debates Debate_topics#Debates_about_Conservapedia, on his talk page User_talk:Psychohistorian. HeartOfGold 19:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
  • ...scientific theories since they are based on FACT...
Theory based on fact. Care to logically explain this one? Yes, we know it is a fact chimpanzee's exist, but please, bring some facts into this alleged arguement. RobS 21:05, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I guess he's blocked so he can't answer. But every scientific theory is based on fact (observation and experiments). What did you think? Leopeo 10:30, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Abraham Lincoln

I have two articles added: the one on Lincoln, and Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. I told you Lincoln was large, and I'm still not finished with it, but it's still a big improvment over what was there before. Karajou 22:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Of course he was large, he stood 6'4" tall (but he was skinny as a rail, weighing in at only 185 pounds ;-) --Ed Poor 22:23, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Wrong! You forgot about the fact that Lincoln loved to "measure up"; he would see someone who appeared to be taller, and would ask for a measure while both stood back to back, and through sheer will power (Lincoln could actually do it), Abe Lincoln could add two more inches to his height. Karajou 22:26, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm waiting anxiously to see your entry, and perhaps add some edits.--Aschlafly 22:33, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
As it stands it's already there, and you can add as needed. Karajou 22:34, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

What needs to be added are his private life (Mary Todd, kids, etc); a section on the style of his writing; his profound and deepening belief in God; plus various pics as needed. Karajou 22:49, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Lincoln was extraordinary in that he went from being a disbeliever to a believer while in office. I had a few sentences about this in our original entry here.--Aschlafly 23:07, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I did remove the section on the quotes. What could happen is that we could do a separate article just on the quotes, or we could add-in webpage links, which ever is preferable. But having the subsection within the article on his relationship to God is mandatory! Karajou 23:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Lincoln a liberal?

You might have seen many a mention of Lincoln being a liberal, that Republicans from his time were liberals, that the slaves were freed by liberals. But the quote I put on the main page is a very early, and very accurate, description of conservatism, and Honest Abe embraced it. Being conservative was a big part of who he was. Karajou 00:39, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

New article: Lincoln's Cooper Union Speech, with the complete text. Karajou 01:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Wow. Fantastic!--Aschlafly 01:10, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Additional stuff

It needs just the subheadings pertaining to his style of writing, and to his beliefs in God. The pics that I'm adding should also have little trivial sidebars to them, as you can see on those that are there. I feel they would help explain the man beyond the article itself. And if you please, no pics of Booth. He just doesn't deserve to be anywhere. Karajou 22:29, 9 May 2007 (EDT)


a chess feature sounds great, but give it a little while, ther is a bunch more i am planning on adding. I have to go to bed now so i am done for tonight. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

You might find this interesting(or quite disturbing)


Great story, which I first heard about months ago. The follow-up is terrific and I've put on the front page, with photo. Thanks much!--Aschlafly 01:10, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

another article Creation-evolution controversy

I just added another article on the Creation-evolution controversy. It needs copyediting. Also, there may be some content that needs to be reworded to remove liberal POV necessary to get it published on WP. (I am not a liberial, but some liberial POV might still exist). If you want to remove anything from the article, *please* move it to the talk page so that I can rework it. Thanks. HeartOfGold 01:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks much! I'll review with great interest.--Aschlafly 02:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Another article on McCollum memo

I just added another article on the McCollum memo. If you're not aware of this memo, it is very interesting reading, as is Stinett's book. HeartOfGold 10:46, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow!!! Fantastic effort!!!!--Aschlafly 10:57, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Contest

I created a page at [[Conservapedia:sysop contest]] for you to explain the contest more fully, i.e. who is eligible, is their any sort of nomination, etc. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 10:40, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Can I just point out that having a "contest" for something you deem to be as important as being a sysop is--or at least should be-- degrading to the others who have--and are trying--to earn it. I have made numerous good edits, I am a top 30 contributor in terms of links and have made some very valuable contributions. Yes, I started off shaky, but I have made the switch. I am not sure though that this site needs people of conscience as much as ideologues. Flippin 12:49, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
"Contest" is perhaps not the best word. But conservatives believe in meritocracy, and the best man or woman will be selected.--Aschlafly 13:09, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, in a way, this falls under tournament theory. The reward is that the best one will be made sysop. This and the transparency of the wiki software may very well lead to sabotage or rat race problems. Maybe you should keep an eye on this, I expect things to heat up at least once we get into the "less than 50 articles before promotion time" area. You want an increase in productivity (and I'm sure it will work), but you have to thwap people with a rolled-up newspaper if things go bad. Just a friendly heads-up :)
(And yes, I only made those three articles to make this point - I clearly have too much free time :P) --JLindon 13:16, 9 May 2007 (EDT)


I am just a newby round here but are deletions from user talk pages good form? I can understand articles and User pages being edited but unless something is obviously defamatory I would have expected some sort of dialog to continue on a talk page. I only ask as I noticed a passage from user Montezuma here yesterday with a quote I liked and it appears to have gone missing. Ian St John 13:47, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know about MZ, but Aschlafly (sorry to invade your talk page before you can answer!) has always said that 'a user's talk page is his/her castle'.--Wikinterpretertalk?
I can see a User page being a castle, that's how you present yourself to the world, but surely the talk page is meant to be a place where amicable discussion takes place. IMHO only if something gets out of hand and inflammatory should things be deleted, because how you respond to the discussion shows what person you are. If you respond with ad hominem comments or deletions is the mark of the intolerant thug whereas reasoned argument is the sign of an honest, educated gentleman. If we are all going to get along we need to aspire to be the latter rather than the former. Ian St John 14:16, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
This may have been an accident, as I suggested further up. It can happen when somebody...
  1. ...hits "edit" and copies the entire content of the page into an external editor and then...
  2. ...hits "edit" after having written the reply in the external editor and simply pastes the entire thing over the new content, overwriting all edits between then and now
That would at least explain how it might have been an accident. I don't know if this here was one or not. Just offering a possible explanation :) --JLindon 13:54, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
You're all correct! A user's talk is his castle here and he can delete whatever he likes there. But that was an accident as I did not mean to delete that, and I will restore it. Thanks!--Aschlafly 14:19, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, I see you restored the edit but was there any follow up to it after DanH apologized?Ian St John 16:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
No, there wasn't. Are you expecting me to comment? I would have to read it more carefully in order to comment.--Aschlafly 16:39, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Maybe I'm being naive but I thought that actually reading additions to your user page was the whole point in having one. I couldn't really care one way or another but it seemed like a reasonable request begs a reasonable reply. Ian St John 16:59, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
  • As has been explained, a users talk page is indeed his "castle" subject only to the Commandments and our Conservapedia Guidelines. As user cannot use their own pages to defame, denigrate or attack, in a personal manner, other users, for instance. We do not allow cursing or pornographic images either. While we support strong intellectual debate, personal attacks, unsubstaniated attacks, cannot be tolerated. Such things have a chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas. Disagreement is good. Debate is good. Personal comments and attacks, never are. That is the kind of mobocracy and bullying that exists at Wikipedia. Now something more specific, Andy is right, one would need specific details. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
We got a bit of an edit conflict while I was replying to Mr. Schlafly. I agree with you TK we don't want bullying or mobocracy. You seem to have expanded on my query but it would appear that Montezuma was the victim of bullying in the first place and since the sysop in question apologized I thought that there might have been some resolution.Ian St John 16:59, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Can we "cut to the chase" (get directly to the point) here? I thought the apology was the resolution. It usually is. :-) --Aschlafly 17:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Has the user's block been removed? If not then it doesn't seem much of an apology.Ian St John 17:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I think there is a history behind the block. I'm not sure. I suggest you take it up with whomever did the block. DanH would know and he can be reached here User talk:DanH. I'm not ducking you, it's just that Sysops respect each others' blocks because only the person did the block knows the full story. By the way, the user id name itself is kind of ridiculous, don't you think?--Aschlafly 17:55, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Are you referring to Montezuma's id - I believe he was a Mexican or Amerindian hero of some sort (without doing a google), there are all sorts of strange ids on the internet so I never give it a second thought. I only asked you about the block because I got the impression that you enacted the block at DanH's behest. My real concern was that CP was made to look ridiculous by ill-informed blocking. Otherwise people seem very friendly round here and I hope to add a lot more articles.Ian St John 18:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I didn't block or approve this block. Each Sysop has the full authority to block and I don't second-guess them.

(moved below)

Since you're encouraging future sysops...

I would welcome any evaluation of my edits. [5] Flippin 15:58, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Kansas school board and abstinence

[6]. Not sure if you've heard yet. --Hojimachongtalk 18:13, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

If somebody set up an article on the Kansas School Board, I could look at it later and provide a Kansas voter's perspective. DanH 18:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

That would just be original research, not encyclopedic content really. Flippin 18:16, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
  1. 1, we allow original research. And #2, I wasn't going to insert my opinions, just facts about the school board and its evolution controversy as well. DanH 18:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Easy, tiger, just saying you said "a voter's perspective" so I assumed you meant editorially. Flippin 18:21, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
DanH, don't we only allow OR in essays and signed articles in the "Conservapedia:" namespace? --Hojimachongtalk 20:08, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Racially offensive User Id?

That said, the name "MontyZuma" continues to bother me. I think it is racially offensive, and I'm not one to enforce political correctness. It took me a while to see that, but that's my conclusion and I would block the user on that basis alone.--Aschlafly 19:47, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Racist? come on, how is it racist? just because it is the name of an Aztec king? do you have a problem with User:Hannibal ad portas?
I solicit the views of others. "MontyZuma" is a mockery of the name of a Central American ruler. It strikes me like someone who tries to imitate a stereotypical ethnic accent.--Aschlafly 20:05, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Schools cannot even have sports teams named, generically, "The Indians" anymore. High School and Colleges were long ago forced to dump "The Aztecs", and the likes. Since we are online, and someone cannot "prove" their ethnicity, I think it better to steer away from such a mockery, as Andy said. Seems some of our users support such things, using the revisionist terms/thinking one place, saying they are okay in others. It gets confusing! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I might add that the name "MontyZuma" also has an anti-intellectual, sarcastic tone to it, in mockery of serious students of world history. We want editors here interested in learning, not mocking those who do learn.--Aschlafly 20:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Banning team names of "The Indians" and such sounds like an example of politically correctness. Would this be another example of political correctness if one was to force renames that might offend? --Mtur 22:06, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Indeed you cannot have it both ways, you know. One cannot espouse revisionist thinking in articles, then decide it isn't good for certain users, eh? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:09, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I was more thinking about the issues raised in [7][8] . If you are going to steer away from things that might offend people, this is the start of political correctness. If political correctness is founded on mistaken assumptions of liberalism, then one had best be sure that these same assumptions are not being used as the foundation here. Having someone change their name because it is similar to that of a Mexican Aztec ruler and might be racially offensive sounds very much like the claims of an overly sensitive liberal. --Mtur 22:19, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
My 2 cents: I see no big deal with the user name as it could be a tribute to Montezuma. I also don't think it's anti-intellectual, it's just a handle used online for identification. Signing an article or comment with that does not detract from the content one bit. Jrssr5 08:27, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm surprised left-leaning contributors above defend the name "MontyZuma". My objection has less to do with its potentially being racial offensive (though that is a concern), than with its anti-intellectual tone, as I explained above.--Aschlafly 09:11, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
In any case, it's flippant. Unless the contributor has a reason to adopt a pseudonym, he'd be better off using his real name. --Ed Poor 09:21, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
If you go that route you'll have to make everyone use their real name. It'd be hard to single out one user when so many others user aliases (Conservative, Karajou, myself, etc). Jrssr5 09:30, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Left leaning or not, I see this as an issue of consistency. One cannot complain about the evils of political correctness in one article and then take issue with a potentially offensive name (has anyone actually been offended yet?). Nor can one complain about being anti-intellectual and suggest the use of a real name when other high profile sysops use names that are clearly not their own. Doing so in either case makes it seem like there is one set of rules that applies to sysops and those in favor and another set of rules applying to the rest of conservapedia. If that is the case, then clearly state it. If it is not, then this is an example to show consistent handling of all of the conseverpedia community. Personally, I don't care what the rules are as long as I can figure out what they are and that they are applied with consistency. If the user names need to be politically correct and representative of the actual name of the individual, then state that and enforce that (without grandfathering). --Mtur 13:37, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
It seems more to me like you just have a bone to pick with this guy. Your initial objection to the name clearly had to do with racist implications, judging by the title and your first comment, and now it's "anti-intellectual". If you are curious about his choice in name or want him to change it, why don't you just have a conversation with him about it, instead of making it into a public spectacle? --Colest 09:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Advancing the radical "agenda"......

Berkley, California, City Councilmembers Darryl Moore and Kriss Worthington are asking the city manager and the city's personnel board to explore the financial feasibility of offering the benefit of sex-change operations to be covered as part of its employee health benefits to the city's approximately 1,500 employees. [9]

Noting that the city's health care providers, Kaiser Permanente and Health Net of California, cover heart surgery and gallbladder surgery, a city employee couldn't understand why sex change surgery should be treated any differently!

Brad Kieffer, a spokesman for Health Net, which insures 2.3 million customers in the state, said the company doesn't normally cover sex-change surgery under its group benefits, but will add them if a company or municipality asks for it.

Kaiser Permanente spokeswoman Alix Sabin said Kaiser offers sex-change operation benefits to all University of California employees and San Francisco city employees, but groups must ask for it to be included in their plan. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:58, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

To: Andy, request for collaboration

Dear Andy,

Here is an article I would like to work with you and others in regards to creating a new article: Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution Here is some preliminary material I created to put in the article:

Perhaps, we could put a condensed version of the article in the Theory of evolution article itself with a small tag pointing to the bigger article.

Lastly, make sure everything is footnoted as this will be a contested article.

Conservative 22:31, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

And from the beginning, make sure the positive social effects are noted (such as leading the surge of modern science, opening a Pandora's box of functional biological understanding, and leading to major medical advances with let people live double their natural lives). --Hojimachongtalk 01:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Behe questions whether any advances have been made due to the "evolutionary" model. Perhaps you were confusing evolution with genetics or biochemistry. Our Definitions of evolution article should clarify this type of confusion. --Ed Poor 09:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed, have to disagree. HIV drugs are designed with evolutionary mechanisms anticipated. There are also a lot of other areas in environmental biology where evolution has influenced and benefited the science. Environmental engineers use evolutionary principles for design of ecosystems after major construction. Biochemists use evolutionary principals for understanding enzyme function. Molecular Biologists use evolution principles for understanding protein prodigy and ancestry between species. So yes there are many advances that have been made due to the theory. I do not wish to slander a fellow colleague but M. Behe has not contributed productive research in quiet a while, although he has amassed quiet a fortune through his book deals. Not to mention that he seems to have failed to keep informed of advances as shown by his testimony at the Dover trial, quiet embarrassing if you ask me.--TimS 09:37, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
What "evolutionary mechanisms" are you talking about? The sort that allow a creature to change into a different kind of creature, or something more mundane like changes in gene frequency? The latter does not lead to the former, and is not any more "evolutionary" than it is "creationary". Philip J. Rayment 10:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I will make a personal article for this on my talk page. I have given examples to Ed before and I am more than willing to do the same for what I said above.--TimS 14:07, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Phil, I have read your edits extensively, and I know that you understand that evolutionary theory does not claim that one creature turns into another kind of creature. I recognize from you're writing that you are better informed than that, unless I've read poorly.--JoyousOne 15:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I'll take a look, Conservative. Sounds like another important and provocative work! I'd like to work with you on it.--Aschlafly 01:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Tim, if you don't wish to slander a "colleague", you could start by not making ad hominem arguments against his work. The amount of money he made on his book should not be a reason to dismiss what he says in his book.
Also, you diverged from my question when you said that Molecular Biologists use evolution principles for understanding ancestry between species. When you overstate your case like that, I wonder what you really have in mind.
If you expect me to trust you, then you'll have to keep to your agreed writing plan. You'll also have to avoid making sweeping statements without back up. --Ed Poor 10:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
It is the evidence that Behe has backed away from research to publish controversial publications that bring in more money than providing scientific evidence for his claims, the same goes for Richard Dawkins. I know many are not aware of the rift between scientists that are actively researching that try to stay out of the political arena, to provide objective science vs. the scientists who feel slighted be society’s lack of understanding when it comes to science and feel the need to engage the public. Dawkins feels the need to “educate” the public if the want it or not. I do not agree with this. I would not have gone into science if I did not have a need to know about life around me, but I can not force someone to have that same passion. Besides, being a scientist is a very humbling experience, low pay for the amount of education you need to be effective, little recognition for your work and effort compared to other professions that benefit society (who remembers the scientists that developed the hepatitis vaccine?). I only wish to provide the information for those who wish to use it.
What I had in mind is to provide the background to circumvent other obvious questions that may arise from those other fields listed. Normally I encounter an "Ok maybe that is true in this case but what about this?". I was anticipating, but Philip did help to provide a method to which I can address these topics constructively, even Conservative did as well with his protected user page essays.
Do not worry, I have kept my POV in check while writing articles. That does not need reinforcement since I have a personal belief that a person should have the right to have their own POV when presented with evidence and facts. That is the nice thing about science (research specific), speculation gets you no where within the community, only facts and evidence.--TimS 14:36, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Added a bit more to Lincoln

His style of writing subheading was added, which is a subject that could get it's own article. I feel that more could be added, which pertains to the Gettysburg Address. Belief in God is next, as his life was full of references to Him. Karajou 11:24, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

As a bit of an add-on to the Lincoln category, we could create articles for his important writings as a ready reference, besides what is already here. The same goes for other influential Americans: Frederick Douglas; Ben Franklin; George Washington; and many others. Karajou 11:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
This includes Lincoln's "House Divided" Speech, but I can't seem to get it properly disambiguated. Karajou 11:59, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Now I got it. Karajou 12:03, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Changes to Lock & Block policy

Some articles have been protected by sysops purely to prevent changes to an article they have created. I note that below this edit box it says " If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here." I can understand the need to lock pages or block users for edit wars or vandalism but perhaps there could be a locks or user blocks for specific pages only. So that if there is vandalism it doesn't prevent other editors making contributions. Also some editors do get carried away with their own viewpoint on a specific topic which contributes to edit wars. If they were only blocked from editing specific pages for a period then they could continue to make useful contibutions on less controversial topics. I don't know if it is possible but I thought I'd make the suggestion. Ian St John 15:27, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

  • This is a non-issue. Editors are invited to submit any changes they want to make on the article's talk page, and can always ask, per the protect template, the protecting sysop to unlock it for them, or discuss with them the proposed changes. That isn't too much extra effort on the very few protected pages we have. Please stop making assumptions as to why things are locked, or the history behind it, seeing bad intentions everywhere. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:35, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I am not seeing bad intentions everywhere. I am making a constructive suggestion that there be a little more freedom for responsible editors. If people make vandalistic edits then fair enough you can block them. There are several instances where suggestions for improvement of a protected article have been in limbo for a considerable period. This only serves to stifle constructive editing. Not all changes are major, some are quite minor. Ian St John 16:37, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, all I am seeing in your first post is the assumption as to why Sysops lock a page, without knowledge on your part. Sorry. I think the articles locked now, so few, really, were all locked because of repeated vandalism and idealogical editing. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk

16:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, I was making a general comment, but you have taken it personally. I wasn't bad-mouthing you, my suggestion was made as an alternative to the using-a-sledgehammmer-to-crack-a-nut approach. Ian St John 17:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Ian, you are going about this all wrong. Don't begin by accusing everyone. Just ask for what you want: "Please unprotect article X."
Beginning with an accusation puts others on the defensive. I bet you are feeling a bit defensive right now, because I did the same thing you did: I started with a criticism (all wrong!) instead of asking for what I want (be more polite).
When well this vicious circle of recriminations end? --Ed Poor 17:03, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Ian, I didn't take it personally, as you can clearly read, I said people should not assume why Sysop's lock a page. I didn't think you were targeting me. Ed has a good point. From my POV, a user posting on the Owners page has but one intention, and that is to do an "end run". If you have issues, it is always better to contact the Sysop protecting an article, and dialog there. That is why the template was made. If I have protected something you want to edit, just email, IM or post on my talk page. Or on the discussion page for the protected article. It really is that simple. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
This has all gotten out of hand. I made a suggestion to try and free-up the editing for reasonable editors while still permitting blocking/locking of vandals. My mistake was to inform TK that I would offer this suggestion to AS. I did comment on the formatting of a particular article but TK seemed adamant that it would not be changed and berated other sysops for unprotecting the page to make edits. I didn't want to go down this road as it smacks too much of ad hominem and I certainly have not accused everyone, Ed (sorry if I offended you by reprimanding you on your changes to my castle user page), so please don't tar me with that brush. TK, sorry but I don't understand your term "end run". As for the simple editing of a template well maybe I need to brush up on this, is there a suitable description page for it? My aim is to make editing as easy as possible for responsible contributors. I had responded to calls on the main page concerning articles in need of improvement but found that most of them were protected. If I see that something needs changing (from my own POV this would include grammar, spelling, phrasing or layout - I don't want to get involved in all these ideological debates) then I would like to be able to do it there and then. Otherwise I will go off and do my own thing.Ian St John 18:06, 10 May 2007 (EDT)