User talk:Aschlafly/Archive22

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(cont. from archive)

Ian's point was a general observation, not a targeted comment, so putting it on a talk page would be kind of silly, I'm sure you'll agree. He has a good point, that many important articles are written by one editor in a small & insular circle, then locked, and commentary is ignored. It's a general issue at CP, and he's brave to bring it up. I think we all know who the worst offender is, and it's not you, TK :-) .-Speaker 18:04, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, I can see his point. The locked pages clearly say to contact the locking Sysop about it. There are so few articles versus those that are not locked, as to be an "non issue" in my own mind. Since I know he has never asked me to unlock something, I just didn't understand, but I believe his intentions are good, because he must have used other wikis as well. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:07, 10 May 2007 (EDT)


Username problem

Apparently people can't use spaces in their usernames anymore. Just something I thought you should look into. WeHopeThatYouChoke 17:22, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

  • You might be better off to post that on the Webmaster's page. ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Alright, done. WeHopeThatYouChoke 17:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
      • These names come from Radiohead songs, so they're probably not as directly threatening as it seems, but I still agree with the decision to block. DanH 17:37, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
    • I not sure song lyrics legitimize anything! Seriously, I do appreciate the info.
    • Note, however, that this user also let slip that that he apparently has used spaces in his name before. I infer that he was blocked in a prior account. His tone in complaining left something to be desired also.--Aschlafly 17:43, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
      • Yeah, plus, why would somebody arbitrarily pick the line "We hope that you choke"? DanH 17:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Technical side note: Maybe the space in user names should be re-enabled. It makes users who wish to use their full name (or a nickname consisting of multiple words) more readable. And there is no reason to disable it since the space can hardly be used to convincingly impersonate anybody (the issue had been the non-ASCII characters in usernames used to impersonate sysops, if I recall correctly). --JLindon 18:12, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I have spaces in my name is that OK or do I need to take them out? Ian St John 18:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Your spaces are fine. It's only on new accounts that there is this limitation, and the limitation on spaces may be lifted for new accounts also.--Aschlafly 18:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Just for my own misplaced vanity -- are you all using the code I posted to filter non-ascii characters? --Jtl 19:30, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Using? The right question is, "Does anyone even know what it means?" --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, TK, I would hazard a guess that plenty of people do… --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 15:14, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • The problems of the world do not stem from those who know the solutions, Linus, but because so many do not. The need is for making people understand, not "settle" for just some knowing. Give a man an ear of corn, you ensure he won't be hungry for a few hours. Teach him how to grow it, you change his life. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:03, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Locked article (Scopes Trial) and Comatoseraccoon's shenanigans

Hello. One of the reasons I want to be an admin is so that I can edit articles such as Scopes trial. Meanwhile, is there a template for use on the talk pages of locked articles that results in a flag that is monitored and will call attention to locked articles requesting to edits?

Also, I warned User:Comatoseraccoon here, but I also praised him. This user seems to be a sneaky fellow who on March 21, 2007, snuck in this uncited edit in the article on Atheism (and even if it were cited, it really wouldn't be approriate on this Encyclopedia, as Comatoseraccoon's addition is clearly Left-wing bashing of the Boy Scouts of America, despite the Supreme Court decision in Dale v. BSA.) The text added was:

One prominent example of prejudice against atheists is the Boy Scouts of America. They have had a number of lawsuits against them from some boys who had been denied the rank of Eagle Scouts simply because they were godless.

I would recommend a block, as he was previously warned for other shenanigans on the article on the Scopes Trial. HeartOfGold 23:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

  • That is Conservative's domain, and I will leave it to his decision. Most other Sysops will to. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Is "that" the unlocking of an article or the blocking of a user? HeartOfGold 00:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

HeartOfGold, I'll unlock the Scopes trial for you now.--Aschlafly 00:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Just wanted to disclose something. I came across this edit by Conservateur, and I reverted it here. I then posted a message to Conservateur's talk page explaining why I reverted it here. After posting it, I saw that the user had been warned before about other edits, and assumed the worse. However, upon further investigation, I learned that Conservateur was re-instating an edit you may have made, or at least argued for. So my apologies to Conservateur here. [Skipping other notices]. Even so, I did not reintroduce the content because it is just not logically related to the Scopes trial. I think you'll realize that my view on the Al Gore contribution is not based on any POV pushing on behalf of Al Gore. Indeed, I think he's the real world chicken little. Even so, I really don't think the content belongs. I am in the process of getting Larson's book back on the Scopes Trial, and I do hope to add several cited additions to the article that will make it much better. Meanwhile, I thought it was the right thing to do to let you know that I reverted an edit you may have supported. If you want to lock the article again, go ahead. I'll let you know when I am ready to add content. Thanks. HeartOfGold 00:22, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Where do you report recent vandalism?

See this recent vandalism by User:Cybrpnk for example. I reverted the vandalism.

Also, see this apparent vandalism by user User:I*ewedgetalkswithyou. Thanks. HeartOfGold 00:20, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Andy "Swifty" Schlafly, beat me by two minutes! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:30, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, TK. It's all cleaned.--Aschlafly 00:33, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Can you email me a form letter, i am going to have this vandals internet access revoked. Geo.Talk 00:37, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Good idea. Let's do more of that. I'll email you what has been effective in the past. Where there is a school involved, there should also be disciplinary proceedings against the student.--Aschlafly 00:43, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Don't they usually want to hear from the site owner? Or at least a domain's email address? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:48, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to interrupt your plan of action on how to deal with these vandals; however, is there a place to notify admins, such as a sysop notice board? I'll book mark it if you provide me a link. Thanks. HeartOfGold 00:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Fine, we'll give them that. I'll email all the other system needs to end the abuse from its system. The other systems are usually happy to block such users.--Aschlafly 00:52, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, most vandals are probably using proxies, so you're not seeing their real addresses. That's almost for certain. Further, no university AUP will cover anything remotely close to vandalism on this site. But, I agree, stopping vandalism would be good.-Speaker 01:19, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
No, that's not true. It's a nuisance to use proxies and most vandals simply use their own IP addresses. No one is using a university IP address as a proxy, for example, and we seen several instances of vandalism from a university.
If you think a university is going to allow vandalism to continue from its system, or that any ISP would, then I think you're living in a dream world. The university or ISP does not want the exposure that can result from ignoring complaints about vandalism perpetrated by their system.--Aschlafly 01:28, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I do wish you luck, Aschlafly, I really do. We may not see eye-to-eye on any political issues, but we can both agree that vandalism is just wrong. That said, I'll believe it when I see it work, but again, good luck.-Speaker 01:30, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

P.S. to my comments above: when the vandalism originates from an employer's system, you bet that employer is going to stop it.
Often vandals think they can use other persons' property in inflicting harm. It's the mentality of a vandal. Would you let someone else use your car in vandalizing someone else's property? I doubt you would. I doubt anyone would.--Aschlafly 01:33, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Pay no attention to them, Andy. All these guys who think they are techies also deny that the FBI is very active with even site vandalism. I am on with the FBI daily about MySpace vandals. They do actually appear, like on a TV show and scare the kids, and talk to their parents.....;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Okay, I had to jump in here when I read this. You (andy) obviously have no clue how simple it is for vandals to use IP proxies. No idea. And to TK, why in the world, would the FBI give a hoot in heck about vandalism on a web page? That is one of the more ridiculous things I've ever heard on here and makes me seriously question why you are a sysop if you believe this sort of myth. And to Andy, I suggest you take a moment to explore options for getting proxy addresses before you continue to post on this subject you obviously know next to nothing about. Flippin 15:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Flippin, I see you are continuing your candidacy for Sysop! What i was talking about was predators and site attacks, and of course you were wrong to assume anything. Posts such as yours moves me closer to endorsing closing the site and having an application process, which would include verification of name and location. Only those sincere would comply. Now please go create something, and try to be positive, instead of always criticizing. One might mistake your intentions otherwise. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:28, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I think you should close registration to this site--I think actually having rules like that in place that are followed would be a welcome change. Flippin 15:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I think it is easier to just remove the bad seeds, and pray for them. I am on a campaign now to rid the site of constant negative talk. Take that as advice. We have a vision and a goal. Distractions from that vision, are going to be dealt with. I don't need Andy's permission to remove such users, as posted several times by him. Day after day, Flippin, it wears thin. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, it seems you recognized the need for a break already, just read your user page. I hope you enjoy your time off, and come back rested and refreshed and rededicated to contributing to us on a positive basis! Good luck to you. I have protected your page against vandalism. When you return, simply ask any Sysop to unlock it. :-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:48, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

  • How that is meant to create a "positive" atmosphere escapes me. I think the real issue is (conservative) editors here can't appreciate debate unless the two sides are voicing the same point of view. Thus, there really is no reason to "debate" if all you want is people who agree. I wish you would also leave my page alone---just as you implore others to. Flippin 15:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, sorry you disagree. I saw it as being transparent and informative, and protecting your pages while you are gone. Besides what you had up was a vioilation of the CP Guidelines, a general attack on CP and its users. I just know you will come back rested and refreshed, Flippin! God's speed to you. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:10, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Chess feature.

Don't do it yet, the article is not ready to be featured. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:53, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

It's good enough. Nothing else to put up for today. Maybe others will improve it.--Aschlafly 01:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
There's a lot more anybody can put (I have at least 15 chess books probably), but the article as is still is one of our best. DanH 15:53, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Some stuff

Here's some stuff I've been meaning to say, but never got around to. It's generally common-sense little things that would make the site a bit better;

  • I would like to propose a general "golden rule" commandment ("treat others as you would want to be treated"). This would be a good catch-all tool for idiotic people who obviously need to be blocked for incivility, idiocy, etc. but you can't mention a specific commandment.
  • I would also like to propose that it is mentioned in a not-too-obscure location that just because this is a Conservative encyclopedia, it doesn't mean that liberals don't edit; indeed, many of us make useful contributions.
  • Could we perhaps move the link to the commandments somewhere more prominent on the front page? They're down there pretty deep.

Thanks Andy, --Hojimachongtalk 01:39, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Just in case this got lost in the shuffle, I'll leave this note ;-). --Hojimachongtalk 17:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

On the use of Ann Coulter as a source

Hello, please see this discussion regarding the use of Ann Coulter as a source, and comment. HeartOfGold 02:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia's primary way of censoring points of view is to declare a certain source as "unreliable" or "biased" or not a scientist, historian, etc. They do this not because they have a better source in mind, but simply because they don't want the opposing point of view to appear in the article at all. It's a way of evading their exalted NPOV policy.
We should keep a source which in turn quotes other sources, until and unless some contributor is willing to dig into the matter. If someone wants to check the numerous and detailed footnotes in Coulter's books, then we can use sources that are more primary.
Our Conservapedia:Sources guideline needs to address this issue. What do we do when a journalist or pundit quotes a source? Or quotes a source which got its information from yet another source? --Ed Poor 10:45, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I would say a published author's work, if properly sourced and attributed, is a good enough source, no? Even if Tom Clancy, and the sources are listed. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • In some cases, it may be more useful to provide an external link. For example, in the Anna Politkovskaya article, I provided a link to Michelle Malkin's website as an external link. DanH 14:37, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

A change I think would help the site

I know Wikipedia has a page request system, in that if you search for an article, and it does not exist, you can create that article, OR request that someone else make it. Could we maybe have a system like that implemented here to help the editors to see what the userbase wants added?--Elamdri 02:28, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Doesn't that show up on the links added to articles, like someone's name? If in red, is shows up somewhere, if I am not mistaken...--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:31, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Pages which are linked to but don't exist show up on the Wanted Pages list. --Jtl 02:43, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Elamdri, looks as if your wish was already granted! Thanks for filling in the details, Jtl. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:57, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's an extremely useful list! That's a great way to identify the most wanted new entries.--Aschlafly 06:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, the "Wanted Pages" is a very useful feature, but it's not really what the question had been about. "Wanted Pages" simply tells which article is the most linked to, but that doesn't mean it's actually what "the userbase" wants, at least not in that order. According to the "Wanted Pages", the four most wanted articles are Major asteroids, S-type asteroids, Trans-Neptunian Objects, and M-type asteroids. Election is at 5th place, Secretary of State is at 54th place, and United States Department of Justice is at 92nd place.
Wikipedia has a page on which users can suggest new articles, no matter if they're linked or not. For example, my Tournament theory article initially had zero incoming links, so it didn't even appear on the "Wanted Pages" list, even though it's a fairly important subject (in my eyes). If I had had less writing/research experience, I would have appreciated a page on which I could have said "Hey, in my eyes, we really need an article about tournament theory. It's about [brief explanation]. Could one of the more experienced editors take a look, please?"
In a way, it's what Ed Poor seems to do here and there (and what I "accidentally" did when I pointed out that fringe benefit had been a red link): Poke people to write articles that are important, but maybe not heavily linked to yet. Only difference is that it would be a central place, for example Conservapedia:Article request. --JLindon 07:31, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
That an excellent comment, JLindon, and accordingly I've started a Conservapedia:Article request. Please feel free to add to it. Perhaps I should link to it on the front page to heighten its visibility.--Aschlafly 10:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Awesome, thanks! :) And a front-page link would be a good thing, at least in the "Quick Links" section (maybe with a more prominent announcement further up for a day or two so the regulars notice it). --JLindon 10:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Done. Thanks much.--Aschlafly 10:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
As a corollary to that, will it be easy and obvious to someone how to add to the list if they are searching for an article? Like, will it be an automatic choice in a failed search result? Guess I'll have to try it. Human 13:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I wrote Election just now, because 18 pages linked to it. But then I found out only 4 were articles. --Ed Poor 10:53, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

That's great! Even if only four were articles, this is still a big improvement.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Alright, I think this is a really big improvement.--Elamdri 17:37, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Lincoln, needs more!

Anything you would like to add to fatten up Abraham Lincoln some more? The religion part of it still needs some more meat, as well as minor smoothing out. Karajou 14:17, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks fantastic. I have some ideas of things to add. Great effort!--Aschlafly 17:46, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Rocky Horror Picture Show

Asschlafly - I didn't create that page. I only started to fill in some of the gaps. I know it was far from complete but I was doing it from memory having seen the film 20+ years ago. Movies are an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia as they go to the heart of contemporary culture. Delete it if you want to but someone will probably add it again and in the meantime I'll be unable to fill in any more of the gaps. - --Commandment9 19:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I know you didn't create it. I said that. But you edited it numerous times and the content was non-encyclopedic. Your other edits focused on similar topics. We're hear to learn and I welcome educational edits. Adult movies, obscene images drawn in the landscape, talk about pornography, etc., aren't going to yield insight for anyone. Please improve your standard and focus here. Thanks much.--Aschlafly 19:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't think I've mentioned adult movies. I wouldn't be qualified to. Obscene images in the landscape? I created a page about the White Horse of Uffingham, a neolithic site of some import near me which is popular with tourists, especially Americans visiting Oxfordshire. How can a horse be obscene? Especially an ancient abstract drawing of one. I did contribute to the pornography debate,; that is true; but only so as to highlight it's negative social implications and ways it is used. I don't like porn and I'm sorry if that's controversial. --Commandment9 20:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh and if we're to be educational. We are here, not hear. --Commandment9 20:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Touche! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:32, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been thinking about what you said and I suppose a lot of my contributions haven't been 'encyclopedic' to date. The reason for this is that my knowledge is mostly generalist rather than specific and because I tend to come here, browse things other people have done, and contribute where I think I can add something. That's the nature of wikis; no-one writes a whole article, they are the combination of the work of many minds. I'll think more while I'm offline about areas I can create more fully and then come to it with something more complete. Thanks for creating this. --Commandment9 18:54, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I think about edits while I cycle to work. Am I obsessed? Ian St John 19:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

How to report a vandal?

The newly-registered Alffurman is one in my opinion. See his edits. Is there a page for reporting a vandal? Leopeo 19:31, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I*ewedgeofi*ewedge is another

I hate to say this, but maybe you should block the creation of new users for a few hours. Leopeo 19:53, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Slight accident in the vandal block, I think

You blocked User:Stevendavy, but he was one of the guys reverting vandalism (like he did on my userpage). At least judging from the information available to me, the block appears counter-intuitive. Hope it was just a mis-click (God knows that it's hard to distinguish friend from foe in high-speed battles like this one). :) --JLindon 19:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and I'd be quite thankful if you restored Userfy. :) That one had been started by Ed Poor (if I recall correctly), and I expanded it a bit after reverting the vandalism edit. Otherwise, excellent work from what I see here, and GREAT response times of the sysops! --JLindon 19:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
And I'd give the benefit of doubt to user:Zero whose first contribution was a short introduction on his user page. The Spam vandal doesn't do that. Maybe Zero just happened to sign up at the wrong time? Anyway, I suggest blocking the creation of new accounts for a few hours. Leopeo 20:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks for the information. We do however go on more than just what you see. I am sure Andy and the Webmaster will consider your thoughts..... --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
JLindon's word is good enough for me. Both Stevendavy and Userfy have been restored.--Aschlafly 20:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Andrew. Both for the expression of trust and the unblock/restoration. :) --JLindon 20:12, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Leopeo's request to restore "Zero" is rejected.--Aschlafly 20:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
I am sure you had good reasons for that. Good luck with this series of attacks. Leopeo 20:13, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
The name is reason enough, and his first entry did not inspire confidence.--Aschlafly 20:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok. Leopeo 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't mean to bicker (I hope you noticed I've been improving articles more than debating lately :D) but why is Zero a bad name? GofG ||| Talk 01:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Probably an obvious suggestion

I don't want to make what might be an obvious suggestion, but just in case it is not, are you guys able to track and block IP addresses as well as the accounts created via these IP addresses? Putting one week to one month blocks on IP addresses with a warning might help, especially if you're able to detect repeated attempts from the same IP address. HeartOfGold 01:30, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Good ideas, and yes, already done. Those kind of attackers, are blocked infinitely, forever, per Andy. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

A new low, even for the fascists!

Andy, you might want to take a look here

The Islamofascists in Iran are executing young children!

Nazanin Afshin-Jam, Iranian born, and a former Miss Canada, is their public spokesperson and driving force. Bill O'Reilly had her on Friday night. We aren't seeing this reported in the MSM. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

One might want to remember, that just 2 years ago, minors could be and where convicted to death penaltyes in the US allso. (btw, had to change some text on the other entryes, as the name of the vandal we all know seams to set the spam filter off) Timppeli 05:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
  • One might want to remember that the death penalty in the United States is a state-by-state basis. While it is true minors are tried as adults, under special circumstances, say a 16 year old as an adult, we haven't executed, against all international treaties, ten year olds, have we? This is revisionist thinking, making some other country wrong for the wrongs of another, and trying to minimize it. There is absolutely no comparison here. Please explain what entries you needed to change..... --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
And Iran has executed 10 year olds? The youngest child on Stop Child Execution's executed list is Farshid Farighi, who was 14 to 16 at the time of the offense; it doesn't say how old he was when he was executed. The youngest on the death row list is Hamid Reza, 14 at the time of his alleged crime. And no, I'm not defending child executions -- I'm just striving for accuracy, once again. --Jtl 06:49, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Are you Timppeli as well? Or just answering for him? Because the post above is by Timppeli. And here you are saying you're striving for accuracy. I'm confused. In any event, the information provided is wrong. Please provide your "proof" about child executions here. Iran is in violation of International Law and treaties it has signed. Please show where the US is in the same position. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:58, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm not Timppeli, nor am I answering for him, nor am I talking about anything he said. I'm myself, talking for myself. I said nothing about the US. I'm asking about your implication that Iran has executed 10 year olds. If you didn't mean to imply that, why did you mention ten-year-olds at all? --Jtl 07:02, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

What i meant is that there is no reason to get on too high horse, as there has been minors convicted to death in the US allso so reasently. If you read your own link you gave, you will notice that in Iran, they allso wait untill the people convicted turn 18 before the execution. This is horrible thing, but if it's new low for facists in Iran, then it has been that to US allso. Just in name of balance i thought it would be appropriate to meantion this too. (edit) After going thro the whole site, seams some have been even executed when they where 17. Dosent really change a lot tho. Timppeli 10:23, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I am wary of anything coming out of the United Nations. They are a body dominated by the majority vote of the world's nations. The average nation is anti-democratic and does not respect human rights.
Treaties and similar instruments supported by the UN have to be checked very carefully for imbedded nonsense or anti-Christian provisions. For example, after looking at the "child executions" web page above, I found this:
  • In that context even the argument that corporal punishment could have a “beneficial” effect became questionable. [1]
  • The first aspect of violence against children that violated the rights of children in schools, was that exerted by teachers upon students, in the name of school discipline. Such methods of “discipline” (including corporal punishment, but also other treatment that can be defined as “cruel, inhuman or degrading”) were not consistent with the requirement of respect for the child’s dignity and his or her rights under the Convention, as specifically required by article 28.2. [ibid]
In other words, "spanking" is equated to "torture". So if a mother spanks a 2-year-old for running out into the street (risking death from being hit by a car), she is "torturing" her toddler? Ridiculous!
There are many more examples of this sort of twisted logic, because the UN is not an objective, benevolent group. It is a parliament of the world's governments, and except for a few dozen democracies, the world's governments are so-so, bad, or downright evil. --Ed Poor 10:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Odd that some feel the need to "balance" something about Evil. I guess since they are secular-progressives, they cannot realize that Evil cannot be "balanced", nor should it be. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:31, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
If, as I think you are, you are referring to the need to say 'Stalin/the Contras/Pol Pot was bad', in their respective articles, then surely we don't need to do that. Presenting the facts, neutrally, in an unbalanced way, is enough. We know that executing minors is bad and evil, from the fact of executing minors itself; I would hope that an essential part of growing to maturity is that a person can recognise moral issues from the facts of a matter, without being told by an authority that they are 'good' or 'bad'. Milgram's experiments show that.--WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?
  • If only that were so, the world would indeed be better, no? Unfortunately, as we see above, some have a need to relativize everything, explain away, or try to make equal all Evils. Since most secular progressives don't want morality taught in schools, and since so many parents shirk responsibility to do so, we do indeed need to point out what should be obvious. In any event, Andy's talk page isn't the place to hold such a debate, and it detracts from the original post above about what the Islamofacists are doing.--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:07, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, this is not the right place to discus this, but lets clear up some things, and if you want to continue, we can make an debate page or continue in irc. So back to topic, i really dont get what you mean by: " Unfortunately, as we see above, some have a need to relativize everything, explain away, or try to make equal all Evils." Isn't it a good thing to point out where the evil lies? Im certainly no fan of facists, but they are not the only ones doing horrible things, and i think it deserves to be noticed that same things can be happening much closer, and to wake up people to notice what happens in their own country. If it took untill 2005 to outlaw death penaltyes to minors, there wasn't really a big uprising against it. Mayby it's time to shake people up a bit to see that not all evil things happen abroad by evil non-believers. Timppeli 20:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I would submit it isn't the place of someone living abroad to do that, otherwise it is perceived by our users here as hubris. We can chat on IRC. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Articles on Economics

I see you have contributed the majority of the economic articles. I have read through a great many of them and found them both educational and well written, indeed I would like my two children to read some of them. Just a thank you for creating such well written and simple articles that explain things very well. I think you would make a superb teacher. AHowden 22:26, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a long way to go in building our articles, but the end result is that you can be confident that your kids can safely read the articles with no problem. That's the kind of "family-friendly" we want here. Karajou 23:52, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Karajou, you might be interested in my reply to AHowden on Conservapedia:AFD_Homophobia
Oh yeah. Looks like "one foot in, one foot out" if you know what I mean. Karajou 00:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)


Is this image here [2] in the Public Domain?Bohdan

Yes. According to US law, if the image was created before 1923 it's public domain. Karajou 23:27, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
thats what I thought, but others told me it wasn't.Bohdan
That's right. I'll update our entries on copyright and rules to make that clearer. Thanks for asking.--Aschlafly 23:29, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
We also have this, which I mentioned back in March: I double-checked a courtcase called Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., case citation 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, which that copies of images in the public domain could not be protected by copyright because the copies are not original or lack originality. This is also a good topic for discussion, as well as giving Conservapedia something ironclad to stand on. If we take this case, word-for-word, and post it on the copyright or rules pages, or even provide a clear link to it via Find-a-Law, then that would also help the site. Karajou 23:50, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Done. New entry created Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and link added to copyright.

"World View"

Andy, you missed a really wild page on WP! Take a look at this: [3] They certainly are getting more whacked out! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

The perceived bias resulting from the demographic analysis was quite interesting. I wonder how it compares with contributors to this site? Ian St John 09:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia is apparently not liberal and anti-American enough, and wants to shift even more to the left, per systemic bias. Note how Wikipedia decries that its average editor is "from a predominantly Christian country," without adding that often that editor is atheistic and/or anti-Christian himself. So Wikipedia, which is quite anti-Christian, is accused of being pro-Christian based merely on the geographic location of its average editor rather than his views.--Aschlafly 14:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
My guess as to why they said that is that whether you're athetist or not, if you grow up in a Christian country you're more aware of Christian values and practices than if you grew up in a Muslim Country. I even notice this sort of thing as I grew up in a town with a large population of Jews, so while I'm not Jewish, I know more about their faith and practices than others. Jrssr5 15:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Honestly, I was reading through some of their stuff and the blinding, searing double-speak, PC based revisionist rhetoric started to give me a a Congressional hearing will do. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:25, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

What is amazing, when you attempt a neutral, non-Western, mutlicultural presentation of a matter, citing Project:SystemicBias, it is disallowed as "marginal or fringe". RobS 21:34, 13 May 2007 (EDT)


A quick look through the articles for individual countries shows a wide disparity in layout and content. Is there a standard template for country entries? Ian St John 11:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Ian, I left a welcome and some useful links on your talk page! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 11:59, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Spam filter causing problems reporting vandals to Conservapedia:Abuse

Hello, I tried to report Jonathon (already blocked) to Conservapedia:Abuse, but there must be some pre-existing content that caused the spamfilter to block my report. Could we archive and or remove the offending spam filter trigger? Thanks. HeartOfGold 00:21, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

The page has been fixed for the filter, and the user has been blocked. God bless you for your continued efforts.--Aschlafly 00:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you. Another sysop recommended that I should use the email link...I assume he meant of whatever sysop is on at the moment. Or is there a generic abuse email link to report abuse (in case the filters kick in again?) God's peace. HeartOfGold 00:38, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I just had the same problem on RobS' talk page. What sort of edit triggers a spam protection response? Cheers MatteeNeutra 18:19, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

An interesting article for Noah's Ark? Dutchman builds modern Noah's Ark (1/5th scale). HeartOfGold 00:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT) Other more recent stories.

Enjoy. HeartOfGold 00:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Great stuff. Thanks. We posted this story when it first broke about ten days ago.--Aschlafly 01:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Opps, I missed it. HeartOfGold 02:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Your text Most influential

Something "under construction"? Connected to nothing, lost and forgotten? Should be connected somewhere? If this is page under construction should it be connected under your user page... --Aulis Eskola 17:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Let's make it an essay and add it to the series for Essays.

messed up once but not twice


Sorry for not catching that Jonathon vandal earlier. A early edit of his should have tipped me off before you finally banned him. However, I got Lithium banned right out of the chute! Conservative 19:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

If enough of us are watching....Anyway, some of us delete this guy's content as soon as it shows up.JoyousOne 19:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)


Why is the article for sex/intercourse deleted? God is the omnipotent creator of the Universe, so surely the biological process by which all organisms are created would be his doing. By which logic has this article been removed?

It's non-encyclopedic and unenlightening. Liberals for some reason have spent untold hours trying to talk sex here. Forget it. See our rules.--Aschlafly 20:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Yet homosexuality, for some reason, still exists.... --Hojimachongtalk 23:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
"Non-encyclopedic" by what definition? Don't Encyclopedia Brittanicas dating back hundreds of years have detailed diagrams and the like detailing the processes of reproduction? To exclude articles based on the idea that "liberals" are somehow going to get a kick out of it is ridiculous. "Liberals", as you (Aschlafly) see them, are homosexual abortionists. What better way to stick it to those hippie/pinko new-waver types then to show them how the Lord says we should propogate the species? I can't think of one.


Oh, I just had to... Richard Dawkins likes Wikipedia [4]. --Hojimachongtalk 23:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

You will want to see this [5] Geo.Talk 01:02, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I just read it. History repeats itself. This is like the Soviets infiltrating FDR's administration, State Department, and the Manhattan project. Scary. But I suppose some still do claim that Alger Hiss was innocent. Oh well, I am still trying to figure out what evolutionists hope to gain by infiltrating conservapedia. HeartOfGold 01:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

The idea that evolutionists want to "infiltrate" CP suggests that they're at cross-purposes with CP staff. It's best to keep in mind that "evolutionists" and creationists have the same goal - education - when editing CP. Us "evolutionists" just go about it different ways. There is no invidious intent except to better prepare the children that are under-prepared by incorrect pseudoscience on this site.-Speaker 01:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hello? Evolutionist here? I'm not as evil as most think ;-). --Hojimachongtalk 01:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, well I am evil. It's part of my charm. --Horace 02:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
While many of the cheerleaders for evolution may not be consciously evil, many of their atheist thumping intellectual forerunners and leaders are highly suspect. Their interest in evolution is as "education" with quotes, it seems to me. Most liberals do not realize that the ideas they believe to be rationale, from abortion to evolution to redistribution of wealth to living breathing constitution, were either conceived of or promoted by evil men and women, who likely had other motives in forming and disseminating such ideas. Ignorant liberials are, in my opinion, useful idiots in a larger cultural, and ultimately spiritual, war. That being said, I think the philosophy of science should be taught (that is, various ideas about what exactly is science), as well the theory of evolution--but aspects of the theory of evolution that fall outside the realm of science according to tenets from the philosophy of science should be clearly identified. Simply allowing scientists to define what science is leads to bold assertions that common descent, creationism, alchemy, astro-projection, and so on and so forth, are science. The same applicaiton of fundamental premises from the philosophy of science should also be applied to Creation Science and Intelligent Design. Without defining and identifying basic logical and philosophical antecedents (e.g., induction, falsifiability, empiricism), the science/pseudoscience claims and counterclaims are meaningless propaganda of interested parties. Devout evolutionists often do have ulterior motives, which becomes evident in their flames on religion, God, and conservative cultural values. HeartOfGold 14:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Apologies, but that sounds like so-much alarmism, or straw-man argumentation.-Speaker 14:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Logical fallacies come in a variety of flavors. See also non sequitur. HeartOfGold 21:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Your above rant is nonsensical alarmism, or a straw man argument (Take your pick).-Speaker 21:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Dawkins wants to come to CP, he is more than welcome. He starts editing from his idealogical POV, he is as easy to boot for me as anyone else. He might impress some, but not me. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
What if he tried an ideological[6] POV? Auld Nick 06:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Running out of places to post tonight? Sometimes humor is indeed in order.  :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

sorry bout that

Sorry, I meant no offense, but have you read some the articles on this site? yeesh!--27102340 13:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I've looked at your handful of edits and learned that want accurate quotation marks dropped in one instance and that you spent as much time on talk pages as adding value. But regardless of what I think of your edits, we don't allow name-calling. Got it?--Aschlafly 13:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Where did I drop accurate quotation marks? Let me know and I will fix it. --27102340 13:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Reread what I said. I didn't say you dropped quotation marks. I said you wanted accurate quotation marks dropped. You've only done a handful of edits, but you don't know what I'm talking about???--Aschlafly 13:40, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I do now. You omitted the "you" in your response so I was uncertain as to what you were trying to say.--27102340 13:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This individual was here last week under a differnent user "number", and he was blocked for many nonsense edits as well as mocking the site. Karajou 17:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
And no apology by him?--Aschlafly 17:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Of course not. Not a single individual who tried to trash this site ever apologized for it. Ed put him on a 2-hour ban. I recognized the "stupidpedia" remark from him. Karajou 17:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
This is the guy in his previous incarnation: User:1048247 Karajou 17:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Actually, I think a few have apologized. But only a very small percentage, so you are almost completely right. However, it is only a small percentage that ever does anything meaningful.--Aschlafly 17:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
On a purely pedantic note, maybe the reason that people don't apologise is that they are blocked from making contributions. Ian St John 18:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Could be. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Many have taken advantage of that generosity. But I'm not going to change just because of that.--Aschlafly 18:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Just warned MiddleMan about pushing his liberal agenda here. What he's doing is akin to someone entering his neighbor's house and re-arranging the living room without permission. Karajou 17:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Really? Aren't we supposed to be editing, and staying off the talk pages? Is the entire Wiki really meant to be Andy's "living room"? --Hojimachongtalk 19:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
"neighbor's house and re-arranging the living room without permission", lol, my in-laws literally did that to me, and my wife could not understand why I was upset. HeartOfGold 22:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I was under the impression that people wern't blocked for idealogical reasons on Conservapedia, but rather actual violation of rules.

(Block log); 20:10 . . Karajou (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:MiddleMan" with an expiry time of infinite: user fully intends to push his liberal agenda, no matter what we say, as cited on my talk page, main page, and within his contributions in general.)

--Mtur 20:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

The general rule is that we do not block merely for ideological reasons. But that doesn't excuse other behavior justifying blocking. MiddleMan seems to have been violating the 90/10 rule, for example, and he did repeated edits to Great Flood that violated our rules and required reversion. We expect some open-mindedness from our editors and a one-sided determination to "rearrange the furniture" can result in the violation of numerous rules. Some display of open-mindedness by MiddleMan would be a prerequisite to his returning, I think.--Aschlafly 22:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

However, as is clear from the blocklog this block is purely for idealogical reasons. No one has cited any incidents in the recent past that suggest any rules broken. While this ultimately is your playground and if you say someone should leave, that is the end of story, however, it does not demonstrate any amount of open mindedness from the sysops or administration. To me (and I am sure other editors too) this appears to be an arbitrary or ideological ban that demonstrates that if you are not a conservative you should not participate at all - if you edit main pages, you get accused of pushing an POV that is not conservative and if you edit talk pages trying to figure out how to properly word things to not offend the conservative sensibilities, you get accused of being all talk and no work. --Mtur 22:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
re: 90/10 rule. MiddleMan edits: Conservapedia: 15 Mainspace 130 Talk: 105 User talk: 33. Looks like 153/130, well under 90/10. Human 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
That's over a long period of time, I think. I checked his last 150 edits and got a different picture. Moreover, many of his "substantive" edits were on the trivial side. Some of his substantive edits even had to be reverted, and of course those should not count.--Aschlafly 22:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
The last 100 edits in all namespaces does not pose a very useful view. It would penalize those who participate in the debates and write essays. There was a discussion in a talk page and many people contributed many edits to the talk page. With such a discussion happening, it becomes easy for someone to say "opps! you made 100 talk page edits today and only 10 main page edits, time to ban you." when there are many people who are just as 'guilty' of the same ratio today but are in favor. Instead, I suggest pulling up a last 100 edits in the name spaces in question (main and talk) and look at those. There was a "substantive" edit by Conservative that was reverted today. Everyone makes substantive edits that are reverted. None of this makes the ban look any less arbitrary or ideological. Might I suggest instead looking at "last 100 edits in main space" and compare that to "last 100 edits in Talk space" This way, you can compare the dates. In this case, there have been 100 main space edits since May 11, and 100 talk page edits since May 9. Main space edits clearly outnumber talk space edits in the last 200. --Mtur 23:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
OK, I looked at his edits as you suggested. About a quarter of his recent edits have been on one entry, Neanderthal. That's an appalling statistic. Of the remaining mainspace edits, many were silly, like an ideological edit to a healthcare entry and the insertion of a fact stub to another. I haven't seen much value in any of these edits, and we don't have the time to go around cleaning them up. As I said, if he can display open-mindedness towards facts and views presented on this site, and contribute value, then it's a different story. I haven't seen that.--Aschlafly 23:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Compare this to other editors and sysops when they are working on an individual work (Conservative had about about 50 consecutive edits to Scientology recently, and further back had almost 100 consecutive edits to Theory of evolution - if multiple consecutive edits to single article is frowned upon, it would be good to have sysops set the example). I have seen sysops have the last 100 mage namespace edits be all one article. The edits were not part of an edit war. Can you demonstrate where his edits have not been open minded or where he has reverted conservative ideology? For an individual who does not accept the YEC and anti-evolution standpoint of some sysops and administrators, it can be incredibly difficult to twist one's mind to writing something that way without making a mockery of the standpoint (either intentionally or unintentionally). MinuteMan has said that he is going to write facts about science and world history. If someone else wishes to come through and put in another point of view in the article, then so be it. The key point is to not expect everyone to write with full awareness of the conservative position. If I am mistaken and everyone should be writing with full awareness of all the nuances of the conservative position and stating those in every edit, then this should be written down somewhere so that those of us who do not know that standpoint will be better informed. Likewise, if this is the case, it would be helpful for those who are aware of the conservative standpoint to sit down and write out a document explaining exactly what it is so that others do not error in write something that does not match up with these beliefs. --Mtur 14:04, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Not sure if you've seen this, but

in case you have not, 'Design' Proponents Accuse Wikipedia of Bias, Hypocrisy by Doug Huntington of The Gospel Herald. HeartOfGold 22:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

The Gospel Herald isn't fit for use as toilet paper. --JohnsonH 22:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Finding no value in the criticism above, I've posted the interesting story on the Main page. Thanks, HeartOfGold.--Aschlafly 22:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Cool, thanks, I finally hit one. Anyway, just sent you an email. HeartOfGold 23:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
AOL shut off my emails from Conservapedia, probably due to high volume. Please email my id directly there.--Aschlafly 23:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I'll just post it here. My talk page ended up with a "category: worthless conservapedians" or something similar. But while I was trying to investigate where it came from, it disappeared. Seemed like some sort of shenanigan. But I can find no evidence that any template was vandalized, so I am not quite sure how it appeared (and disappeared) from my talk page, though my mind is lucid. Just wanted to ask if there were any such acts of vandalism that were deleted. HeartOfGold 23:58, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Never mind. I figured out what happened from this post. HeartOfGold 14:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Proper nouns and text from terms pages

In an early creation of the text in the Something Terms M pages (for any term Something and letter M), there have been many links to upper case terms. This causes problems in a wiki in how these terms are linked. Many of these require cleanup so that real price, or relative price or rational behavior can be linked to rather than having to link to Real Price and Relative Price and Rational Behavior. As editors cannot do moves, this requires sysops to go through and clean these pages up. However, sysops themselves are creating new proper noun pages for words that are not proper nouns. How does one address the importance of this wiki style and initiate a cleanup? --Mtur 23:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't know what to do about the capital v. small letter issue. What do you suggest? I'm probably the worst offender of changing standards there.--Aschlafly 23:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I already moved the pages, it is easy. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Tim - you got the three that I mentioned there. Those where from Microeconomics Terms R. If you go to Microeconomics Terms I, you will see another five. Microeconomics Terms L has another four, Microeconomics Terms M has three more, Microeconomics Terms M has four more. And thats just Microeconomics Terms pages... go to another such as Chemistry Terms D and there are three more, Chemistry Terms H has seven more.
Aschlafly. The problem is that if the page is linked ot as [[Some Term]], then only [[Some Term]] will form a proper link there. However, there can be a different page that is linked to as [[some term]] or [[Some term]] (as in the start of a sentence). These will link to another article. A wiki considers something that is in leading caps for each word of a multiple word phrase to be a proper noun and only linkable as a proper noun. This makes it difficult to link to if it is not a proper noun and requires either a pipe link [[Some Term|some term]] or excessive redirect pages. For wiki cleanliness, the best practice is to have lower case titles and no redirects. There are many redirectsthat are just there to hide the improperly named articles.
  • When creating a new article consider the question "is this a proper noun?" If not, make it lower case.
  • If you came from a page that has a link to an upper case edit it to point to the lower case.
  • If nothing points to an upper case redirect, delete the redirect. (Example: Luxury Good)
  • If you see a page that is a proper noun and shouldn't be, move it to the lower case.
As this site has only move by sysops, this 'boring housekeeping' can only be done by sysops. Currently, its only being done as they are raised in various pages (which needs to be done in talk pages which brings people who attempt to notify the housekeepers ever closer to that 90/10 - especialy when multiple calls are needed). --Mtur 14:19, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I fully support Mtur in this, and I think I raised it somewhere before soon after I arrived (and was ignored), and I've been reluctant to start moving pages because I seem to recall reading somewhere that Conservapedia prefers using capitals (although perhaps it was just the opinion of a sysop?).

Lower case (except for proper nouns of course) is definitely the better way to go, for the reasons that Mtur explained. As long as we are happy for this to be Conservapedia policy, I'll happily move pages to lower-case versions as I come across them, and add it to the manual of style.

So are we agreed on that?

Philip J. Rayment 06:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

User Legal

he was that notorious vandal that cannot be named. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
PS. Can you turn off the filter that won't let me type icew... (oops it won't let me say that) it doesn't do any good. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


We seem to have a situation where there were duplicate articles, and someone decided what would and should be moved to a single article, all on their own, without seeking input. Neanderthal exists now as one article, yet the others were deleted. I am just wondering if we might have some better communication, and at least some opportunity for input? It seems at least one Sysop was indeed asked before it was done. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yep. It appears Sysops wish to edit war on the anthropological series. RobS 00:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes. Because consolidation of two articles, leaving the current entry unlocked and open for editing, and removing a large blank space all make for an edit war. ColinRtalk 00:43, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, let's hope we can resolve this before we get to Homo habilis. RobS 00:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
It is a misunderstanding. I deleted a double of an entry, and TK is getting all worked up thinking i am pushing some kind of evolutionist agenda. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:50, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, I've cleaned up an entry as an uninvolved editor, made it neutral to evolutionaists & creationists, and was reverted several times. RobS 00:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
You are not an "uninvolved editor" and FYI we don't have a NPOV policy here. And your NPOV version is no such thing. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:55, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Tim, Excuse me, upon review it will be noted I have had zero input in any of the Creation Science or evolution articles, neither in mainspace nor talk. I have edited once within the anthropological series an NPOV version, changing such POV views as "we do not know", etc., to reflect "scientists" or "researchers do not know". It may be hard to present evidence that I have been involved in any other capacity in any natural science mainspace. RobS 12:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Phillip, kindly undo all your actions, if you have nothing to hide, and that will settle the issue. We can all offer input as to what should or should not be included in the one remaining article. Isn't that a fair way to handle this? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:04, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Beat Drudge on this story

Blind man finds bias in denial of gun permit -- He already has a permit from Utah, wants one in Minnesota, too. HeartOfGold 13:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Quick question

Sorry to ask a small question, but you're the main person on this site and hence your word hefts quite a bit of authority -

  • Which do you want us to use when referring to God - capitalised or uncapitalised godhead pronouns? ('He' or 'he'). It's just that I've seen both used, and wanted to clean it up a bit. The former is used more in older English texts (and is, therefore, more conservative), but the latter is closer to the original Greek and Hebrew (and therefore is perhaps more Christian). What do I do? --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?
I say definitely uppercase. --Hojimachongtalk 17:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I would say go with the context. DrSandstone 17:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Sub Categories

Hi, I don't know where to ask this and I couldn't find it in the help file (maybe I'm blind). I've been looking at the Geography category and would like to make better use of subcategories. I've been looking at it and can't figure out exactly how they work, and I'd like to get a better feel for it before I start messing with things. Do you know how to do this or can you point me in the right direction as to where I might find this information? Thanks. --Colest 17:36, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I guess expecting some kind of helpful response was silly of me. --Colest 09:09, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't really understand categories all that well myself, but this should provide all the answers you need. Philip J. Rayment 09:20, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the link, I didn't even know to look there :) --Colest 09:35, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Question about Conservapedia:deletedpages

I was noticing that some topic pages, like Scientology, have been deleted as pages. I am definitely NOT a believer in Scientology but isn't having a page like Scientology beneficial(for at the very least a description of IMO how "whacked" it is?) - even if it's a locked page? I'm just wondering what happened to it and pages like it. Thanks for your time. PatrioticAmericanCitizen

The Scientology page had become a magnet for vandals, and hence its deletion. Apparently the entry was not reliable.--Aschlafly 19:55, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Forgive my impertenance but isn't Global Warming the same type of magnet? Will the deleted pages come back with a reliable but un-editable version maybe? just curious.PatrioticAmericanCitizen
In the same vein, the article on Mousterian tools was deleted in whole due to some vague mention of species relation. As I recall, there was no mention of species save the well-documented association between the tool tradition and Neanderthal Man. Almost all of the article was concerned with the classification, manufacture, and properties of the tool tradition, all properly cited. I would ask that the article be reinstated, and if there is some problem with the content, discussion as opposed to heavy-handed deletion would be appreciated.Prof0705 20:06, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Are we oblidged to use liberial euphemism "pro-choice"?

I do not think so, but Dpbsmith does. So my question is, which is preferred on this conservative encyclopedia? Liberial euphemisms, or accuracy? HeartOfGold 23:01, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

The user making that edit made a good point; consistency. Using "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Abortion" is inconsistent; it should be either "Anti-Abortion and Pro-Abortion" or "Pro-Life and Pro-Choice". --Hojimachongtalk 23:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, but I missed where he made that point. In the edit summary he referred to Courtesy not consistency. Did he make a point about consistency somwhere else? HeartOfGold 23:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't think very many people would call themselves "pro-abortion" because that sounds like they think it is a good thing, rather than something to be avoided in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. However, I have always felt that "pro-choice" isn't very descriptive, but most people know what it means which probably makes it the better option. GodWarrior 23:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I am having trouble seeing how your observations apply to conservapedia. While your observations are cogent, do we really need to allow the left to dictate the accurate characterization (from a conservative POV) of their political stances? HeartOfGold 00:04, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
"Pro-choice" is obviously a euphemism, but "Pro-abortion" is confusing because it sounds like they are in favor of forced abortions or something. Unfortunately, with this being an encyclopedia it seems to me that it is more important to be clear than to eliminate euphemisms. We could always think of a third option... but none are coming to mind right now. GodWarrior 00:28, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I will suggest "supporters of legalized abortion", but it would probably be a bit unwieldy. --Hojimachongtalk 00:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
  • "They" will do anything to try and label it other than what it is. That's why "they" came up with the term "partial birth abortion" rather than calling it what it really is. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:31, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
"What it really is" being IDX (Internal Dilation and Extraction)? --Hojimachongtalk 00:33, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Ultimately, I am confused. I think I am going to go hunt around more about the purpose of this encyclopedia. Meanwhile, I do understand that pro-abortion is misleading to those who are unfamiliar with the debate, but it is accurate in the sense that the right to choose leads to the right to select abortion which leads to the right to conduct the abortion which ends the life of an unborn child. Maybe a compromise could be reached that does not betray conservative values or accuracy. HeartOfGold 00:36, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
  • No. Skull crushing. That is exactly what it is. Nothing less, nothing more. Call it that, and who would choose that "procedure"? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:37, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Which is why 0.17% of abortion procedures use it; and I don't mean to get graphic, but technically it's skull collapsing via suction. --Hojimachongtalk 00:39, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't have a perfect answer to the name dilemma. I suggest a mixture of pro-abortion (which reflects the support for taxpayer-funded abortion and donations to Planned Parenthood) and pro-choice (which is a euphemism, as the same people usually do not support choice in education).--Aschlafly 00:40, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Andy here; either could seem appropriate in different circumstances. It all depends on context. DanH 00:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Could we go "Pro-abortion rights" for this issue (keep in mind this was brought up specifically over Anti-Flag)? --Hojimachongtalk 00:42, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I am still thinking....HeartOfGold 00:45, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Or "supports abortion legalization"? DanH 00:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

(Still dismayed.) The group doesn't show up on conservatives' radar as far as I can tell, the only critique of the group I could find so far was from the ultra-left (the critique being that they signed a record deal with an evil capitalist record company). Why do we need to soften a conservative POV? Assuming we do (and I do not think we should), "supports keeping abortion legal" might be a compromise, though I prefer "pro-aborition". HeartOfGold 00:54, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
In any event, I don't want to disrupt progress on this site for an article that probably won't be read by conservapedia customers anyway. I'll leave it to Anti-Flag fans and other interested parties to figure out if alternative phrasing is required. We've probably spent too much time battling over an obscure article as it is. I was more interested in terms of conservapedia in general, and whether or not we should use left-wing euphemisms.
The article on Kent Hovind here on conservapedia is giving evolutionists fodder for laughter; that it exists in its present form on a conservative encyclopedia probably gives them great joy that conservapedia has been infultrated and subverted. HeartOfGold 00:59, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Don't lose heart, "HeartOfGold". I'm unsure what "radar" you're looking at, but I can confirm that Conservapedia has a greater presence among college and high school students than most conservative organizations combined. But don't ever expect neoconservative magazines or media to recognize us.
As to terminology, I also prefer "pro-abortion" but recognize that it is not always the best term to use. Some deference must be given to what people like to call themselves, for example. I may think some Democrats are really socialists, but for identification purposes it is necessary sometimes to use the name they give themselves. :-) --Aschlafly 01:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I meant that the group Anti-Flag doesn't show up on conservatives' radar (and hence makes writing a conservative article about the group difficult without resorting to writing an essay). You really should study these two diffs:
And note that KillerChihuahua recently wrote about conservapedia: "but the article for Kent Hovind on Conservopedia rocks (as of this writing.)" I do think you've been infiltrated. It is over this that I am most at risk of losing heart. HeartOfGold 01:19, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
We have been infiltrated, because we've welcomed infiltration. We grant accounts to everyone. This is a place to engage the opposite side in discussion, debate and conversion, through the process of improving an encyclopedia. Conservatives are not afraid of this process and we're confident that over time the facts and logic will win out. This is not a country club or a church. This is more like a public square.
You can see from the history on the Kent Hovind entry that I reverted it once. Please join my efforts for that entry and others. Please don't give up.--Aschlafly 01:30, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Okay, I am off the discussion pages (except when I move content from articles to talk pages--I assume this is acceptable vis-a-vis the 90/10 rule). HeartOfGold 02:06, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

There may be a place to use a term that someone uses of themselves in some cases, but I can't see that it is necessary in this instance. Neither do I see what is wrong with "pro-abortion". Surely it means "in favour of abortion", not "in favour of compulsory abortion". But why not compromise with just putting quote marks around "pro-choice"?

Thus: 'The band is "pro-choice", and supports...'.

Philip J. Rayment 06:51, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Because putting scare quotes around a phrase inherently mocks it, or presents it as less than valid. Will we put "pro-life" in quotes as well then? I find that term as laughable as Schafly finds pro-choice. Most "pro-lifers" sure don't seem very pro-life when it comes to the death penalty or wars of choice... QNA 07:14, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

"Most "pro-lifers" sure don't seem very pro-life when it comes to the death penalty or wars of choice..." -- Hmn. 2,000-3,000 abortions per day in this country, of unborn children, whose worst crime is that their fathers may have been rapists, are slaughtered usually in the name of sexual freedom. I don't think comparing the slaughter of innocents to a war on terror or capital punishment of criminals found guilty in a court of law, with all due process of law, is exactly fair. HeartOfGold 09:07, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Because of course, no innocent person has ever been wrongly tried and executed... and no innocents are ever killed in the course of our "war on terror"... I'm not debatingthe relative worth of a life. I'm just pointing out that the term "pro-life" is at least as disingenuous as "pro-choice". And the term "pro-abortion" is not only innacurate, but imflammatory. Very few (I'd say no one, but I'll hedge a bit) people are in favor of abortions, but many feel strongly that the right must exist. As they say, I'm in favor of making abortions, safe, legal and rare. QNA 12:11, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Safe for the baby? That would be good. Glad you oppose abortion! ;-| Philip J. Rayment 12:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
  • If you enjoy NPR, listen to this program, and get back to me on how rare abortion is. When faced with competing problems, one in which thousands of innocents are slaughtered each day, and another in which at worst a few innocents are slaughtered each year, I choose to be most conerned about the greater problem. Others choose to be concerned about perceived hypocrisy and double standards. HeartOfGold 12:19, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

That's being obtuse Philup, and beneath you. And as for how rare abortion is currently, I never claimed it was currently. The statement is a paraphrasing of many pro-choice groups feelings on the matter. I would love for there to be few, even no abortions. But one has to look at the reasons behind them, and focus the energies there (contraception education, preventing rape, curing conditions in which a pregnancy is life threatening to the mother... etc.), not on criminalizing all forms. QNA 12:56, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I stand by my edit comment ("Courtesy requires referring to organizations by the names they prefer to use...")

I am not sure that Focus on the Family's focus is really on the family, I'm not sure that the Pro-Life movement is concerned about the sanctity of life in all it's aspects, and I'm not sure that User:HeartOfGold really has a heart of gold, but I intend call all of these entities by the names they use for themselves. It's just plain rude to alter the name of any person or organization in referring to them. It's just a form of name-calling.

I detest both of the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life," by the way. Both are dishonest and polarizing. Dpbsmith 07:05, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I've replied to your similar message on HeartOfGold's talk page. Philip J. Rayment 07:11, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I've responded there. Dpbsmith 09:16, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Dpbsmith, the group was "Anti-Flag", not "pro-choice." If their name was Pro-Choice, I would agree with you. HeartOfGold 09:07, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough... although I think the appropriate question is "what term do they use to describe themselves." And I've been Googling around on their site and didn't find any clear answer. Nor any evidence that it is a important part of what they present as their political identity. I suggest sidestepping the issue: why don't you remove the term altogether? If someone wants to put it back they should be more specific, as in "the band performed at a rally for NARAL" or whatever. Dpbsmith 09:16, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
The statement above is simply false that "Very few ... people are in favor of abortions, but many feel strongly that the right must exist." The strength of the abortion movement is a powerful group of persons who are in favor of abortions and profit enormously from them. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was in favor of abortion. People donate money to increase abortions and people enjoy coercing young physicians to do the procedure. The term pro-abortion is correctly applied to the heart of the abortion movement.--Aschlafly 12:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
When I hear the term "pro-abortion," it sounds like it has a meaning very similar to "anti-birth." Also, people that take joy in coercing people to take the lives of the unborn are called psychopaths. I really don't think there are many of these people. Those that do exist, if there are any, are likely to be in the extreme fringe of the group rather than the heart of the movement. GodWarrior 13:32, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I think many of the leaders, such as Margaret Sanger, are psychopaths. If you consider intellectual leadership fringes, we might be agreeing. HeartOfGold 13:33, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Woah, I didn't realize she was into eugenics. Surely the current organization doesn't advocate that though? GodWarrior 13:40, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
The above denial that people are pro-abortion serves to reinforce the need to use that term. Planned Parenthood makes money by performing nearly 200 abortions for every referral to adoption. Yes, Planned Parenthood is "pro-abortion". All who profit from abortion are also "pro-abortion". Those who insist that young physicians perform abortions are "pro-abortion". Those who are elected from millions of dollars in contributions from the abortion industry are "pro-abortion". Tell me, do you think any companies and politicians have been "pro-tobacco"? Of course there have been. They have not simply been "pro-choice" about smoking.--Aschlafly 17:19, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Even if one concedes your point that some groups or individuals could be considered "pro-abortion" it is still an innaccurate portrayal of the majority of those who would identify themselves as pro-choice and is therefore needlessly incendiary. Label the specifc groups as such perhaps assuming you can cite something that backs up the accusation, but it should not be used generically. QNA 12:20, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
QNA, we should agree that these are "pro-abortion": those who profit from abortion with money or campaign donations, and those who seek to compel others to perform abortions, those who seek to protect the abortion industry (as in covering up child abuse), and those who seek to withhold medical information from women considering abortions. That is the heart of the abortion movement. Others, who really are little more than bystanders, may not realize all this or, even if they do, may not really be "pro-abortion". But rarely is anyone referring to mere bystanders.
If you contest the above, then could you answer whether cigarette companies and their allies are "pro-tobacco"?--Aschlafly 12:43, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
You can have multiple entities under one corporation that do different things and keep them separate. By your analogy, anyone who buys Nabisco products is supporting cigarette companies since RJ Reynolds is owned by the same parent company as Nabisco. Jrssr5 13:06, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
And I think the term pro-abortion is inaccurate as well ... Pro-choice means you think women should have the choice, not that they have to have an abortion. You can still be anti-abortion when it comes to yourself, but who are you to dictate that no one else can have one? Jrssr5 13:07, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
People who gain from abortion, coerce others to perform abortions, and cover-up for abortion are "pro-abortion".--Aschlafly 13:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Should we move this abortion discussion to a debate page

My apologies for cluttering up your talk page, I should have recognized that it would turn into a debate. While the debate is interesting, you probably aren't so interested in getting notified everytime somebody wants to respond. I can do the work of moving this discussion to a debate topic if you like. HeartOfGold 15:08, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't mind because this is an important issue.--Aschlafly 17:19, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

LPOV templates

I just created a couple of templates: {{Template:LPOV}} and {{Template:LPOV-sect}} pointing to Conservapedia:Liberal_Point_of_View. Is this a suitable way for flagging articles or sections? The templates could use some clean up with regard to aesthetics and diplomacy, others' help and comments apprecitated. HeartOfGold 02:45, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Those should only be placed on articles with Sysop approval, IMO. We don't like clutter here, of most any kind, on the pages. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:08, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Okay, I took it off the one page I added it to because I did not first obtain sysop approval. HeartOfGold 03:14, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Just don't get mad, and be gentle, have fun! Sometimes things are not deliberate as much as they might seem, other times they are. In spite of the efforts of a few, we will succeed here. Remember that well meaning Liberals keep us sharp, challenging our POV, and we can all learn from each other. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:34, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

On LPOV templates and questionable distribution of keys

Sorry if my comment about taking LPOV off the article seemed to be angry. I am not, and was not.

I am dismayed, but not at you, and not about your points regarding clutter (which I agree with, both for aesthetic and diplomatic reasons--meaning, how do you tactfully indicate that an article legitimately needs attention without inflaming the situation and without destroying the tidiness of the current presentation).

Sorry if my dismay over the Kent Hovind article seemed to spill over to the LPOV template. I respsect your authority, and even that of other sysops who seem to want to play games challenges. I don't want to play games, engauge in edit wars, and am willing to discuss with liberals (when my edit to pro-abortion was reverted, I did not engauge in an edit war, but rather tried to seek clarification regarding the conservative POV implied in the moniker conservapedia). I received that clarification, and now understand that conservapedia is akin to a public square.

Regarding Kent Hovind, next we will have an article on World Net Daily investor and board member Robert Beale, who founded the Minnesota Christian Coalition, who also has some peculiar views on taxes, and who is currently on the lam, and we will be so busy racing to 10,000 that nobody will notice or care that conservapedia is being subverted in this manner, or bother to balance the article.

Mind you, I am not against presenting factual information even if it portrays conservatives in less than good light. But I think the project may be a loosing battle in that many conservatives are too busy earning a living or fighting secular fundementalists one sheep at a time in the real world to play games on wikis, while liberals welcomed, encouraged, and given keys here on Conservapedia appear to subvert this site as rabid wikipedian sysop admirerers glout over the fruits of this poison pill.

But again, I agree on the point regarding clutter. Would it help if the footprint were reduced, and the phrasing changed, to make the template less of an eyesore? HeartOfGold 09:00, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I think Joaquín Martínez has the right idea. (Joaquín Martínez is on fire with contributions!) HeartOfGold 09:17, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
There seems to be a reluctance here at Conservapedia to put notices like that on articles, although personally I don't really have a problem with that sort of thing. And just what is acceptable and what isn't has yet to be properly defined.
What specific issues do you have with the Kent Hovind article? Like many articles here, it could say a lot more, but what is there seems pretty accurate to me.
Philip J. Rayment 09:15, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
At the time I noticed the article, the only information in it was negative. Selective sourcing and contributions. That may be changing. HeartOfGold 09:19, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm not happy with the Kent Hovind article either, and I had changed it earlier in its history. The imprisonment is gossipy and simply a misguided attempt to embarrass someone who criticized evolution. It should certainly be placed in a better perspective, and perhaps removed entirely.--Aschlafly 10:14, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I will come out and admit that I added the tax thing, but not to embarrass someone who has criticized evolution; I myself do not believe in evolution. I disagree that is irrelevant. The fact that he will possibly be in prison for the next ten years, and thus has passed on his ministry to his son, is definitely relevant. We could even add Hovind's response to his charges and claims of innocence. I don't honestly see how a provable fact (him being in prison) is gossip. DanH 12:34, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

DanH, you make good points. I'm on the fence with how to handle this. It just doesn't seem right to say the equivalent of "He criticized evolution, and is now in jail for ten years." Maybe the solution is to add more content rather than subtract content.--Aschlafly 17:40, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been trying to add some content about his professional activities relating to his ministries today, and I'm still working on that, because HeartofGold is right that it's not necessarily right for the article to only have a negative POV and not at least describe what he's done in that regard. As for the other issues, I've had a difficult time finding neutral or positive sources giving him a point of view, because his own website does not link to anything other than something talking about why Christians should not pay taxes (which I don't feel comfortable linking to personally due to interpretation of Romans 13.) DanH 17:43, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

HeartOfGold, can you add more content to the Kent Hovind entry? Perhaps you know more about this particularly entry than we do.--Aschlafly 19:20, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I just did a search. I am really unfamilar with the man. I'll have to look and see if Larson or Numbers wrote about him in their books on creation-evolution disputes. Meanwhile, I don't have much to offer. My complaint was that it was all negative and about his taxes, it seems more balanced now. HeartOfGold 21:26, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Your complaint was well-justified. I'll try to improve it further now. Please realize that this project is in its infancy, and the weak entries will improve over time ... with your help!--Aschlafly 21:34, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Sysop status

Thanks Andrew for the sysop status once again. I'll do my best again to keep the vandals out of this project! JustineA --(Niandra)--talk 10:51, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

(From Conservapedia Talk - no answer there)

I am unsure where to ask this ask the 'watering hole' type page most wikis use has been deleted, and I can't post on the Conservapedia Sysops page... so... There is Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion (which appears to be an older one - just a list) and Conservapedia:Articles for deletion (recently created). Could these be merged and using the {{ }} include of the individual AFD articles instead? --Mtur 17:33, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Good idea. Can you take care of this? Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:38, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I can do the associated edits (though last time I tried to do this, it was reverted and protected). This is just one item of a significant amount of housekeeping that needs to be done (some of being a sysop is being a janitor too - not just reverting perceived liberal edits). --Mtur 17:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
  • The problem before, which Mtur refers to, and he was advised of back then, was that he and Ed Poor were both archiving and moving, and two Sysops, me and Hoji had posted questions there just moments before, causing our posts to disappear. Ed and I got it figured out, and I left at least two messages to Mtur praising his proposed system [[7]] for handling the proposed deleted page problem. I think I also sent Andy the link to it as well, and he approved. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:01, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

An idea in regards to helping Conservapedia with getting more vandal protection and covering various costs

It occurred to me that one of the benefits of Conservapedia is that you want a conservative family friendly free encyclopedia as an alternative to Wikipedia. Well in order to cover costs such as hosting fees, legal fees, etc associated with Conservapedia you could offer the porn free search engine that is called on the front page of Conservapedia in return you could get a fee for doing so. With the money you could even hire some Sysops who's job it is to catch vandals. On the other hand, as I stated before you could use it for hosting fees or legal costs. It seems to me as if this would be a natural partnership and a win-win for both parties. Conservative 20:09, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I believe there are already people (myself included) who would be willing to do anti-vandal work for free. If I had the mop, it's the only thing I would do... GofG ||| Talk 20:12, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Request of unblocking of User:Tims

The reason for block was given as "Sock vandal", however it is clear he was not a vandal, and nowhere can I see any evidence that he was a sock.

GofG ||| Talk 20:20, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I just glanced at Tims contributions and he seems very knowledgable about DNA and other biological topics. I think he'd be a good one to have back to use as an expert on those topics. We need all the help we can get. Jrssr5 11:47, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

New Sysops and training page

Dear Andy,

It seems to me as if we should have a article on being a Sysops for new Sysops so they would know how to do IP checks and know also how to effectively block someone.

Here is something that Sharon wrote Bohdan and I had no idea that such a issue even existed:

Sharon posted to Bohdan:

Great job blocking! I'm not sure if anyone told you this yet: when blocking vandals, uncheck the "block anonymous users only" box. The block is more secure this way.

Here is the IP checker:

IP here

It seems to me that if new Sysops knew how to do more secure blocks and knew how to do IP checks we could avoid a lot of vandalism problems that are unnecessary.

So here is a New Sysop training page and I think that you and the beauracrats should inform new Sysops to go there:

New Sysops Training Page

Conservative 20:45, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Main page

I posted this on the main page discussion page, but am also posting on your talk page(sorry if it bothers you) since you specifically(Atleast I believe it was you) wrote that Conservapedia has 9,700 articles. However, if you look at the statistics page it states:

There are 22,122 total pages in the database. This includes "talk" pages, pages about Conservapedia, minimal "stub" pages, redirects, and others that probably don't qualify as content pages. Excluding those, there are 8,644 pages that are probably legitimate content pages.

So from this I would assume that there are only 8,644 articles and not the 9,700 you claim. So I was just wondering where you get the other 1000 articles from. --AdrianP 22:38, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Will respond on main page. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:13, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

A conservative encyclopedia you can trust (where values that made western civilization great are not suppresed).

Addition: (Conservative values are not suppresed here, and that is very good). I do want to provide some feedback. First, I see too many articles that could be much better if written and cited properly, but instead read like personal essays. I think we should strive to develop and/or enforce guidelines that discourage uncited conservative commentary. I think the same conservative perspective can be made in a more scholarly fashion, and it would lead to more credible articles.

This means allowing uncited material to be discretely flagged (perhaps with CN instead of Citation Needed for {{fact}}), and guidelines established or enforced to emphasize quality over quantity.

Second, I think the policy of allowing liberals to contribute is fine, but you have to be careful to not let this become a poison pill. We need to watch out and govern the number of LPOV articles by prolific liberal contributors, liberal infiltrators posing as what liberals see as stereotypical "trailer-park" conservatives, and the occasional saboteur who writes articles about Christians using only negative sources. Liberals are clever (read: cunning). Just as the United States should allow limited immigration from other countries, Conservapedia should not allow itself to be over-run by infiltrators. In general, conservatives are busy earning a living while liberals have much more time for activism. That Conservapedia is a target for such activisim is beyond dispute, it seems to me.

Contributions guidelines should be established and enforced, or at least strongly encouraged, regarding:
1. Relevance.
2. No uncited commentary
3. Limited or no original research and/or synthesis
4. Ratio of liberal to conservative editors (yeah, I know, how do you evaluate this...difficult)
5. Liberals who usually pose as conservatives but who slip in highly LPOV content under the radar--such users should be warned, then banned as saboteurs.
6. Quality sources (no TalkOrigins, Panda's Thumb, science blogs, etc.)

This is a conservative encyclopedia. Liberal POV pushing should not be tolerated (though accurately describing liberal POV using cited sources should be encouraged, so long as the liberal POV doesn't dominate an article).

Obviously, there is a race to 10,000, and other considerations that I am probably not aware of. Even so, I came here to help produce an encyclopedia that does not quash objective presentations so that young people will have a more complete picture than what they can obtain on wikipedia. But if conservapedia continues to allow itself to be victimized and overrun by visigoths posing as conservatives, I do not think we will achieve the goal of becoming a conservative encyclopedia you can trust. And this is truly unfortunate, because my kind is not welcome at commypedia. This leaves me with few options, one of which is to start a BWVapedia (Biblical World View Encylopedia--by and for Conservative Christians), which may just devolve into theological warfare and be unsuccessful. HeartOfGold 02:10, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Took the words right out of my mouth. This is just what I've been thinking about the whole two months I've been here, but you expressed it succinctly. Let's collaborate on this. --Ed Poor 09:32, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
One suggestion for your collaboration ... #6 is a good idea, but you're walking on a slippery slope. If you don't allow some of the sites listed above, you'd also have to disallow AIG and sites that are all over many of the articles here. You shouldn't ban the use of a site because it leans to the scientific side but allow a creationist site. Jrssr5 11:26, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
I was going to make the same point. If you disallow sites such as TalkOrigins, you'd have to eliminate AiG and many others, and Conservative would have absolutely no valid cites in any of his articles. Personally, I'd agree with disallowing all of them as long as it was consistent... but I have a feeling getting any consensus on which of these sites is "quality" would be rather difficult. QNA 12:15, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Aschlafly, I do want to note that I do understand that the race to 10,000 is an effort to reach a critical mass or tipping point, and that my feedback may be more welcomed at a latter time. HeartOfGold 13:24, 18 May 2007 (EDT)