User talk:Aschlafly/Archive25

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Mr. Schafly, we are currently writing a book on "Why Genocides hould be remembered?", and I was wondering if you would be able to spare a few minutes of your time to give us your views on the matter for inclusion in the book. Just to let you know, this is not going to be a major book, but is simply going to be circulated withing the school and communty to raise money for charity. Thanks. ShaneWarne

I'm happy to help for this important topic. Just post your questions here. What time period are you focusing on? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:19, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

We're focusing on genocides in general, actually. We simply want why YOU think genocides should be remembered, as we have been gathering opions from other prominent members of society. ShaneWarne


Apologies, Mr Schlafly to distrub you at this time. I was just wondering why the article on "cacophony". Was it inaccurate or did it not warrant an article in itself? Thanks --User:Omniscience

It looked like vandalism, like other contributions by the same author. A legitimate entry on cacophony is welcome. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:09, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough. It just did not appear as vandalism, although Jasper's other works were definitely examples of vandalism. Just wondering Shenianay, thanks again User:Omniscience

Mediawiki edit tools

Hello Andy (wow, first talk comment!),

I've been considering writing some articles on Biblical translation, and as such I would be greatly indebted to you if you would install the Charinsert extension, here, with Greek and Hebrew letters (I'm sure Ed could help). It would make it much easier for Biblically-minded folks to write articles on such subjects (I've been itching to expand Agape, but have problems including Greek characters). I think User:Fox might appreciate it too. Only do this if you're OK with it though; if not, I'm sure we'll muddle through somehow! --wikinterpreter woo!


I'm not sure if there is anything you can do about this or not, but I clicked on the Orphaned Pages link at the top of Recent Changes, which takes you here Special:Lonelypages.. you might not want #18 sitting there. --Colest 16:36, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I redirected it so it would not show up, but if you could delete it… I don't want it sitting on my contributions. --SimonA 16:51, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Hold it! That page, as disgusting as its title is, is what is known as a "protected deleted page." An entry exists to prevent anyone else from recreating its content, or publishing any content that would lie within the topic and scope of such a page title. Sadly, that means that we must leave it alone.--TerryHTalk 16:53, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
No, it's actually not protected. Whoever made it did it highly incompetently, although I can understand not wanting to spend any more time there than was minimally necessary. I was suggesting that it be deleted and recreated with {{deleted page}}, and then protected. --SimonA 16:55, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Caught another one. --SimonA 17:16, 14 June 2007 (EDT)


Some of our articles on the Russian Tsars use the spelling "czar" - the American way. The correct transliteration "царь" would be Tsar. Which one should I use? Bohdan 19:46, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

The dictionary has both. You're the boss and our expert on these things, Bohdan, so please use whichever spelling you think best!--Aschlafly 19:50, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
I would prefer Tsar, but i realize that in America it is more common as Czar. Bohdan 19:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Up to you. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:58, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
My $0.02: see the AHD's usage note. I'm an American, and the spelling "Tsar" is so familiar to me that I hadn't even thought much about it. Basically, tsar with a lower-case "t" would look odd when used in the generic sense of "powerful official" (Bush's 'war czar', but when speaking of historical rulers of Russia, Tsar seems completely natural. It's not like colour vs. color. Dpbsmith 20:31, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I'd always seen Ts/Cz as a UK/US difference, but library research on old UK papers (1890s/1900s) turned up plenty of Cz spellings here. Pachyderm 09:59, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Opening time

Would it be possible to post a notice saying when CP will be open/closed for the purpose of ordinary editors being able to make changes? Hopefully, CP will be sufficiently large soon to have enough sysops in different global time zones that this kind of precaution won't be necessary, and it can be the encyclopedia upon which the sun never sets. Pachyderm 09:59, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Richard Stockton


  1. Have you a source for the quote that I believe you attribute to Richard Stockton, saying that he refused to serve in public office until he was convinced that he was doing better by God and man?
  2. John Witherspoon, in a letter to his brother, said that "Judge Stockton" had much said against him, including an allegation that he did sign a declaration of fealty to King George III. Then again, Witherspoon doesn't entirely trust the source. Have you any original material that bears on this issue?

Thanks.--TerryHTalk 13:50, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not Andy, and I don't have a primary source for the "doing better by God and man" quote, but the Architect of the Capitol's biography has him saying so. See [[1]]--Steve 16:01, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
That's an excellent source. Thanks, Steve.
As to TerryH's second point, Richard Stockton was badly treated in jail and perhaps he was forced to sign something as a prisoner of the Crown. Not to drop names, but one of my homeschooled students is actually a direct descendant of Richard Stockton and I will ask her.--Aschlafly 16:44, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Possible Sock

I was looking at Smallpox and noticed that PPevensie had restored an edit that you requested not be restored. These are his only edits, and I think he might be a sock of the original writer. Not sure what you'll want to do, just trying to help! Matthew1036 19:52, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Username Blacklist

A friendly vandal suggested that you should add "masturbate" and it's variants from the username blacklist. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 19:41, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

A "friendly vandal"???? What umm, "interesting" friends you have! :-) Philip J. Rayment 20:02, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I thought that was an oxymoron.--Aschlafly 20:05, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
I thought it was humourous. Sorry ;-). --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 20:06, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
And the word itself- dictionary wise- is spelled with a "u", not an "e". --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 20:07, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, and now I'm embarrassed for the mistake! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:33, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
Might I suggest that the phrase "vandal", "vandel", etc., be added to the blacklist? Doppelgängers are too uncertain. --SimonA 22:55, 16 June 2007 (EDT)


The "Random Page" feature seems to have stopped working. Why is that?--Autofire 23:31, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

It has stopped working for me too. Bohdan 23:32, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm dusting off my programming skills from 20 years ago, when I was a UNIX administrator. I hardly ever use the Random page function. Do you use it much?--Aschlafly 23:48, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
I sometimes go from page to page looking for format issues or pages with no links. Bohdan 23:50, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
The feature will return, Bohdan, and we can continue to insert new pages in the meantime. Thanks and Godspeed!--Aschlafly 23:59, 16 June 2007 (EDT)


I don't know if you got my email and fixed the problem or if it is just a security precaution to stop drive-by registration/vandalism, but either way, thanks. --BigDT 14:14, 17 June 2007 (EDT)


to my bloody questions. --Elvon 17:35, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Still haven't. --Elvon 17:55, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Elvon, maybe you're new here. We are productive people on this site. We don't just sit around and talk, and we don't waste time with close-minded attitudes. Already you've violated our 90/10 rule by spending more than 9x on talk rather than substance.
Show that you're serious and open-minded with your edits, and then let's chat. Otherwise please don't waste our time here. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:07, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Oh, BTW, you are aware that the username blacklist, to which I won't link out of courtesy, is publicly visible, aren't you? --Elvon 18:57, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Evan, 13 out of 13 of your edits here have been talk, talk, talk. How about making a substantive edit, like the rest of us? You'll learn more, and maybe we'll learn something from you. It's "win-win". Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:05, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

"The government won't fund any test to might disprove the Theory of Relativity"

Hi - I'm not looking for an argument - I've never seen this kind of claim, and I'm genuinely curious - Why do you think this? What do you think the government's motivation for doing such a thing would be? Is this a commonly-held notion? Best, EnFrancaisSVP 21:20, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

There have been complaints in the past by physicists that the government spends too money searching for gravitons to prove relativity. So this objection is not entirely new. I welcome a counter-example if you think otherwise. But there is no funding of any projects that might disprove relativity, and there is no other plausible explanation for the refusal to provide the small funding identified in the front page story. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:27, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to read more about this - can you post links to articles? I never passed high-school physics so counterexamples, I have none. Best, EnFrancaisSVP 21:30, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

A motto here, EnFrancaisSVP, is this: "don't read a book, write a book." Start with our entry here on the Theory of Relativity and improve it. Learn as your do so, and enter related topics to improve your knowledge and ours. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:43, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Random Page

The Random page link isn't working. I am wondering if it is just my computer or it is the same for everybody. --Penguin 22:23, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

It doesn't work for me either.-Phoenix 22:27, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
My apologies. I've been doing some programming. It works now. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:35, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

This article needs major work. It currently takes a extremely anti viewpoint using Quackwatch as a source. Site Sheriff(Sysop)Geo. 23:00, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Wow, what an extraordinary example of liberal bias! I cleaned it up, and made it informative. Thanks, Sheriff, and Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 23:11, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Something I've noticed

I've been watching our recent logs, and I think we have a problem getting people to create articles to build a basic foundation for the encyclopedia. All people seem to do is create politically charged articles and then spend eons on those articles, often getting into edit wars over marginally important topics, when in reality, I think we're still missing a great scope of basic fundamental articles for an encyclopedia.

In the Special:Wantedpages section there are over 19,500 articles that are wanted. Now, some of these may be niche articles or simply trash, but a GOOD portion are legitimate articles. To list some of the ones I have made:

Granted, these are minimalistic at best, but I feel that the best way to get traffic here in the first place is vastly build the site's database. But this has to be a site-wide effort. I can't do this by myself. Hopefully, others will catch on. My goal is that while we flood the site with NEW articles, people will be drawn in and expand on the tiny articles, making them into full pages.

Sincerely --Elamdri 04:05, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I didn't even realize that was there! Thanks for pointing this out, Elamdri, and for starting to reduce the number by creating entries. You are exactly right that shorter entries can be expanded later.
I'll post a request for site-wide assistance on this at the top of the "recent changes" listing. Thanks again and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:04, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
OK. I'll toot my own horn. And whine. I recently created Billy Sunday, which had been listed specifically at Conservapedia:Articles That Need To Be Created. Obviously the new article was noticed by at least two editors, one of whom struck out the entry in the "needs" list and the other of whom removed it... as well as by User:Colest who added the first image to the article... but, well, frankly, I'm still waiting for an "attaboy." Dpbsmith 11:16, 18 June 2007 (EDT) P. S. He called believers in evolution "bull-necked, beetle-browed, hog-jowled, peanut-brained, weasel-eyed, four-flushers, false alarms and excess baggage." Dpbsmith 11:18, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Yep, that was the basis of Elmer Gantry, all right! Good images, too, and well-placed. We'll be watching.--TerryHTalk 11:27, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
That is a tremendous entry, Dpbsmith!!!! TERRIFIC WORK!!!! Sorry I had not yet gotten to it.--Aschlafly 11:30, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't know about those quotes, however, or the implicit thesis that Billy Sunday's views were representative of evangelicals then or now. The evolution quote, for example, is unlike anything I have ever heard. I did a little digging and while you cite a source for it, the source you cite does not. Not your fault, but I am a tad skeptical either that Billy Sunday said it or that he was representing Christians when he said. Such name-calling is far more common by the other side, and the style of the quote is nothing like how evangelists usually express ideas.--Aschlafly 11:30, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Billy Sunday appears to have been verbally very pugnacious. That's easy enough to document. It's mentioned both by his admirers and his detractors. I didn't mean to imply that he was representative of evangelicals; if you think the article implies that I can make that clearer (or someone else can).
I removed the "bull-necked, etc." quotation. I changed the last sentence of the first paragraph to read: "His large-scale events, which blended preaching with elements of salesmanship, showmanship, and business-like organization, were unlike anything that had preceded him." I think later evangelists—I'm thinking of Billy Graham, in particular—adopted some of his organizational and "big-event" approaches, but I can't imagine Billy Graham breaking chairs. Dpbsmith 11:58, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
The "bull-necked" quote is also referenced by the Nebraska State Historical Society, as well as his calling Christian Science "three parts mental suggestion, three parts Hindoophitia, and ninety-one parts pure humbug". See here: [2] I'll look for more conformation.--Steve 12:10, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'm open to whatever the evidence says. If he's smashing chairs also, then the quote does not seem so implausble. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:36, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
I've found another quote about evolution from him, from this excerpt of "131 Christians Everyone Should Know"..."I don't believe your own bastard theory of evolution, either; I believe it's pure jackass nonsense" from here: [3] He's also recorded as saying "If a minister believes and teaches evolution, he is a skunk, a hypocrite and a liar." So, considering his opposition to evolution and his rather colorful style of speaking, the quote doesn't seem implausable to me either. But when I have a chance, I'll try to hit the library to pin it down.--Steve 13:29, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Your latter quotes above are far more plausible than the quote that Billy Sunday called believers in evolution "bull-necked, beetle-browed, hog-jowled, peanut-brained, weasel-eyed, four-flushers, false alarms and excess baggage." I don't doubt Billy Sunday criticized evolutionists. I do doubt this quote that I just excerpted.--Aschlafly 13:40, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Sorry this is taking so long....I found a similar quote, but this one wasn't about evolution. It's from his sermon "booze", against alcohol. It starts:
Here we have one of the strangest scenes in all the Gospels. Two men, possessed of devils, confront Jesus, and while the devils are crying out for Jesus to leave them, he commands the devils to come out, and the devils obey the command of Jesus. The devils ask permission to enter into a herd of swine feeding on the hillside. This is the only record we have of Jesus ever granting the petition of devils, and he did it for the salvation of men.
Then the fellows that kept the hogs went back to town and told the peanut-brained, weasel-eyed, hog-jowled, beetle-browed, bull-necked lobsters that owned the hogs, that "a long-haired fanatic from Nazareth, named Jesus, has driven the devils out of some men and the devils have gone into the hogs, and the hogs into the sea, and the sea into the hogs, and the whole bunch is dead."--Steve 14:03, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Great work! So the colorful quote has nothing to do with evolution after all. Thanks for getting to the bottom of this! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:39, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Dpbsmith, I emailed you, through CP a couple of days ago about Billy Sunday, saying I thought it superlative. Sometimes the CP email doesn't work, and I should keep that in mind. Anyway, let me add my praise here to the heaps of it above! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:01, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Thank you! Dpbsmith 19:48, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Another win!


Watch FOX News Channel or go to for more

"Authorities said they used surveillance tactics normally used against terrorism suspects" I wonder if these are the same tactics liberals fight so hard against? Bohdan 17:22, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Can you post a direct link? I can't find the story with that one.--Elamdri 18:59, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
NVM,4670,BritainPedophileRing,00.html --Elamdri 19:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you

Aschlafly, thank you very much. Greatly appreciated. Scorpio 17:26, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Upload Rights

Question. I have pictures I'd like to upload to Westminster and Germanicus. Could I be given upload privileges? I think I've proven myself trustworthy, and I understand why you guard this important right. Otherwise, I'll just e-mail them to a sysop (TK).-Phoenix 21:42, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

  • There is also a link to use here [[4]] for making such requests. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:03, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’

THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.

It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes. [5]

The document, jointly commissioned by BBC managers and the board of governors, now replaced by the BBC Trust, includes details of a staff impartiality seminar at which senior figures criticised the corporation for being antiAmerican and pandering to Islam.

Criticisms highlighted from the seminar include: A senior BBC reporter attacking the corporation for giving “no moral weight” to America. Executives admitting they would broadcast images of a Bible being thrown away – but not the Koran for fear of offending Muslims. The BBC deliberately championing multiculturalism and ethnic minorities, while betraying an anticountryside bias. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:19, 18 June 2007 (EDT)


Andy, I filled up the Capitalism entry with some direct quotes from Adam Smith. I realize it's all basic clsssical economics, and doesn't have more modern technical terms and paradigms, but it seems everyone always refers back to Smith anyway. But it also seems like few have really ever read Smith, so I tried to bring out as succinctly as possible the relevent chapters and paragraphs that can be used to describe how the capitalist system functions for a student.

But what I'd really like is for someone (not yourself), perhaps a student, to go over it and give some constructive feedback if it answers questions the way its presented, or are there gaps and holes, and does it leave any lingering questions. Also, does the flow of it work and make sense. Thanks. RobS 00:03, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I started Law of supply and demand. With some work, it could become a flagship article for Conservapedia. Rob and Andy, please help me complete this article. --Ed Poor Talk 13:37, 21 June 2007 (EDT)


Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, Andy; it's the last week of school, and the last two are always busy.

I'm not familiar with memcache; on the off-chance you didn't see it, here's the Meta page on the topic.

I greatly enjoyed the LA times article! --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:40, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you too

For this opportunity.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 10:37, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok, Andy.

I will do it well!

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:59, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

US Government category

Just wondering where I can find the page for the US Government category. Thanks! DeborahB. 11:26, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Deborah, thanks for asking. The category is this (need capitalization): Category:US Government . Geo's contest is here: Conservapedia:Contest . There are many great public domain (copying permitted) government websites, such as these: [6] [7] [8] . Most federal (US) agencies have their own public domain websites, and information from them can be copied without copyright restriction.--Aschlafly 11:43, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks so much for all the info! I will get to work immediately and try to contribute as much as I can. DeborahB. 11:49, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

What happened to AmesG?

Hey what happened to AmesG? did he get blocked? Also if he did, why? He was a great help here (as far as I could tell).--Will N. 13:32, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I think AmesG was blocked numerous times.
Here's a general observation for you Will, which should not be construed to apply to AmesG. Liberals often seem very helpful ... while misleading people. For example, liberals will be extremely helpful in persuading and arranging for a woman to have an abortion. It's only afterwards that the woman realizes that she was "had" by someone appearing to be helpful. Think about it ... if liberals weren't helpful, then not as many people would be misled in a free society. I think Planned Parenthood arranges for (and profits from) 200 times as many abortions as referrals for adoption.
Do you know who appear to be the most helpful people of all? Con men.--Aschlafly 14:09, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
O I see. Got your point.--Will N. 15:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, I am not supporting you.--Will N. 08:55, 21 June 2007 (EDT)


(unsigned posting deleted. Edits have to be signed here to avoid deletion.--Aschlafly 00:44, 21 June 2007 (EDT))

Reid Bryson

You're welcome Andy! I hope you like the new Reid Bryson article. It was linked to the main page before you trimmed it yesterday. [9] Crocoite Talk 09:59, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Fantastic entry about Reid Bryson! I had not realized you had done that, and I've restored it to the front page. Well done!--Aschlafly 11:08, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for re-posting it to the Main Page. It's much better than the WP article right now, and I hope we can improve it further. Crocoite Talk 11:17, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Erm... Virtually all of the Reid Bryson article is copied verbatim from three web sites [10][11][12]. It is to Crocoite's credit that these sites are listed as sources, but it might be a good idea to have some sort of review process before an article is linked from the main page. --Jalapeno 13:02, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
"Virtually all ... is copied verbatim from three web sites." Are you saying it is copied? Please give an example of a sentence copied "verbatim" if that is what you're saying. Note that the sources are referenced by the contributor, and we've received no objections from the sources.--Aschlafly 13:06, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Here's one example from each of the sites I mentioned:

Over his long career as scientist and teacher, Reid Bryson has significantly advanced the understanding of climate, people, and the environment. He has written more than 200 articles and five books ranging over the fields of geology, limnology, meteorology, climatology, archeology, and geography.
Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out from a general—and the general’s apology the next day when he learned they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay.
In 1963, he founded the Center for Climatic Research, in which he is currently Senior Scientist. Throughout his career, Dr. Bryson has been interested in interdisciplinary studies and was one of the founders and chairman of the University of Wisconsin’s Interdisciplinary Committee on the Future of Man.

Considered by many to be the ‘Father of Scientific Climatology’, Professor Bryson has written five books and more than 240 papers in the fields of limnology, meteorology, climatology, archaeology and geography.

Much of Bryson’s work has dealt with climate in relation to human ecology, and this has lead him into extensive travel, especially to Asia where he worked primarily on anthropogenic changes of climate and landscape in general.

I could go on... In fact there is very little original content in the article at all. The fact that Crocoite listed the sources suggests that the plagarism in unintentional and that he/she just doesn't know that you are supposed to use your own words when synthesising material from different sources. Like you Andy I am a teacher and I wouldn't accept the excuse from a student that no objection had been received from the sources -- the chances are that they are unaware of the copying, and in any case proper attribution should be given for verbatim quotes. --Jalapeno 13:44, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the comparison. This is unacceptable and the entry needs to be rewritten. I will also alert the author. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:17, 23 June 2007 (EDT)


We had a persistent vandal earlier tonight who says he'll be back tomorrow night. We were unable to IP block him and had to even lock the database multiple times to no avail. Is their anything we might be able to do to pre-empt this guy?--Elamdri 01:26, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Democratic Party

Unfortunately, the USA is not the only country to have a political party of this name. Hong Kong also has one and other countries may also. It would be good if when entering the words "Democratic Pary" if the user could be directed to a page with that title, but listing all articles under that name so that the correct one could be found. The article "Democratic Party" could also have its title altered to indicate that it is the one in the US by adding the words (United States) in brackets afterwards. I would also like to write a short article on the Democratic Party which was set up in Hong Kong in the 1980's, but am blocked from doing so probably due to the fact that the article on the US one has been attacked (so I understand as this site is new to me). On an encouraging note, keep up the good work —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luojie (talk)

  • CP does not take the "world view" of some other wiki's, however we could use an entire section about political parties throughout the world...and someone needs to start it. Could that be you? Welcome to Conservapedia, Loujie! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:27, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
    • If you want to write an article about the Hong Kong Democratic Party, please go ahead. I can help change any links or "move" any articles if their titles are ambiguous.
    • We can use "US Democratic Party" if it becomes necessary, but with the American flag on each page, I think this won't be necessary. --Ed Poor Talk 16:28, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Breaking News

This discussion has been moved to Conservapedia:Sysops#Breaking_News. Crocoite 11:03, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Protected talk pages?

I was under the impression from previous discussions that communication - especialy between sysops and users is an important part of being a sysop. Asking them questions about the proper things to do and see. I'm curious why you're protecting all those sysop talk pages (can't they do it themselves?) I'm sure that chatting with TK and Conservative is great fun, but it also makes it difficult to ask "where did you get that photo of a lava tube? Is that one you took or is it from another site? Where is the attribution?" Which can be very useful to making certain that Conservapedia doesn't tread on any toes (not everything is fair use and fair uses doesn't remove the necessity of attributing sources). Now, if another sysop wishes to ask these questions and work at policing images or the like then please do so - I just don't want people to forget that communication is necessary. If there are other reasons (exposing minors to criticism), it might be important to look at if minors should be put in public places of authority and then attempting to shield them from the public. --Mtur 15:42, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

  • "All those"? Why is it important to you, that you communicate with young children? I assure you, Mtur, if I cannot help you, if DanH cannot help you, or RobS, or Karajou, TerryH, Niandra, Geo and the rest, there is most likely nothing anyone could do to help! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
The lava tube photo is from USGS, and is in the public domain. Mr. Schlafly protected my talk page earlier this afternoon. I don't know why, but I'm sure there's a reason. If you need to ask questions about my work, use the article or image talk pages. ~ SharonTalk 16:23, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Lava tube was an example - not necessarily a specific item of question. The issue that I have is that there needs to be clear and open communication paths with those who administer the site if this is to be run as a wiki. Alternatively, if this is to have pages locked to prevent user contributions then I am curious if another software platform where individuals submit work/edits that is then approved and then published for the world to see - it would probably have a much smaller incidence of vandalism too. The concept of 'ownership' of a page is foreign to the philosophy around which the wiki software was built and protection is such a heavy handed approach to the problems that Conservapedia regularly faces.
I will point again, that it is not a matter of needing to communicate with minors, but rather the need to communicate with those people who are doing things. Take for example this edit back when ShanonS was working on the definition lists. If the people who are in charge are minors, so be it. If one is to lock discussion pages because they are minors, then do it consistently. Lock every talk page and user page of every student that is taking one of Andy's classes. Require an 'Are you 18 or over?' item when signing up and prevent people from editing the talk and user pages of those people. Then it will be clear what the policy is. Whatever the case, I still think it is important to be able to communicate with people who are the administrative entities on the site. --Mtur 17:50, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
  • I am still missing something, Mtur. I posted on your page a month ago, about your template for handling AFD, which Andy approved, and is yet to be implemented, simply because you never responded. So your talk about communication seems to be from inside your own glass house, eh? Now you have my email, AIM and possibly my Yahoo IM. Use it, and perhaps I can then get some specifics from you and discuss your concerns once I have the same information as you do. Fair enough? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:48, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
This is not Wikipedia. We do not "communicate" the way they do, with intimidation, bullying, humiliation, threats, teasing, and relentless POV-pushing. You don't have "rights" here, and thus you have no right to "speak your mind" or "demand answers".
If you want to volunteer for this project, you have to follow the rules. If you are having trouble figuring out what the rules are, then:
  1. You can ask Andy, TK, or me.
  2. You can work at some other project where the rules are easier for you to deal with.
Actually, it's quite simple, and I think you know it: write article which are trustworthy. I can't believe that a clod like me could figure out how to do it so easily that in only 6 days I was appointed a sysop; and that dozens of sophisticated intellectuals who think they know so much more are still puzzled or stymied.
It's time to drop the pretense: you're not fooling anyone. If you want to help, you can. Your complaints to the contrary ring hollow, and frankly I'm losing patience. --Ed Poor Talk 20:33, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Ed, although I'm not part of this conversation, I can't help but to chime in on Wikipedia. You are absolutely 100% correct about how things work over there. While I will not give out the name I use on that site, I can tell you that I am a heavy contributor I do nothing all day but have to fight for every little detail despite the fact that info I have is verifiable and truthful. The problem is that Wikipedia puts no value at all on truth or verifying the sources given by published authors. They call that "Original Research". Imagine calling the search for accurate information "original research"!! It's utterly absurd. Eventually Wikipedia will have to face the piper on this matter as I know for a fact that editors over there are dumping WP in increasing numbers. I'm thankful that Conservapedia does not put up with the kind of absurd nonsense that goes on over there. Scorpio 13:41, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Upload rights

I know there's a page for requesting image uploads, but as not all images that one would wish to upload are available on the web, what are the requirements for obtaining the rights? --Che 23:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

The requirement is confidence in the value of an editor's work. That's a function of your edits and recommendations by valued contributors. We don't simply give uploading authority to anyone who asks. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:11, 23 June 2007 (EDT)


Andy; I was amazed to find out that there was virtually no coverage of the Yugoslav breakup wars on CP! I've started Bosnian War and Srebrenica massacre, but we still need Breakup of Yugoslavia, War in Slovenia, Croatian War of Independence, Southern Serbia conflict, 2001 Macedonia conflict, Allegations of genocide during the Bosnian War, and Kosovo War (phew!). --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 01:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Wow, great idea, Hoji! I'm sure you'll do a fantastic job and I look forward to reading your entries on this. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 01:20, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, you might want to research the Stari Trg Mine. It has incredible mineral riches that go all the way back to the career of Julius Caesar, back when he was Proconsul of the combined province of Italian Gaul and Illyricum. I've seen at least one site--years ago--that suggested that the whole reason for the Kosovo War was the desire by the NATO coalition to get their collective hands on Stari Trg's vast mineral wealth. I won't comment on the accuracy of that claim, but I still think that the Stari Trg Mine deserves its own article.--TerryHTalk 09:19, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Seeing as only 35.3% percent of our web traffic comes from the USA.....

Seeing as only 35.3% percent of our web traffic comes from the USA when are we going to get rid of the American flag logo for the Conservapedia logo?  :) It seems as if there are a lot of conservatives outside of the USA. Please see:Alexa (internet traffic) Conservative 11:04, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Interesting use of statistics... :D But... Web traffic from the US is over 3 times higher than from the next largest group; US web traffic comprises over 1/3 of all traffic. That would seem to suggest that the Stars'n'Stripes is the best logo for the job. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 11:11, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Humbug! Conservative 11:12, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Don't take it too hard, Conservative! I agree with Fox and merely add that there are many around the world interested in what America has to say, and that interest may be greater with an American logo than without one.--Aschlafly 11:14, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
P.S. By the way, don't be misled into thinking that the Alexa search engine is a major source of our traffic. It isn't.--Aschlafly 11:16, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Fundamental misunderstanding much, Andy? Alexa does not measure the traffic that it directs to a given site; it measures all of the visitors to the site itself. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 20:31, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Conservative, please stop listening to those Europeans on that blog of the RW and being minipulated by them. They do not have this sites best interests at heart. Or yours. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:28, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Lost edit rights :-(

Mr. Schlafly, I saw that you took away my night edit rights. I'm sorry that I took a few days sabbatical; I hope that's not what caused it. Could you please tell me what I did, or didn't do? Feel free to e-mail me privately to resolve any potential dispute. You can use the address linked from my user page: I'd rather not air it in public, otherwise :-) -Phoenix 13:28, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe only Sysops/Admins have night edit rights but I could be mistaken. Conservative 13:37, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

I also noticed that my edit rights have been suspended, and I'm not really sure why. I've been trying to contribute to the Article Creation Drive, and I think I've made some high quality edits. The last edit I made was some spelling corrections to Oxford in which I also Americanized the spelling of "centre" to "center". Shortly thereafter, my rights were suspended and my edit reverted. I really enjoy contributing to this project and creating an encyclopedia that really reflects the truth. If I've upset anyone, I'm truly sorry. Please let me know what I can do to re-earn my edit rights. Matthew1036 15:02, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

I saw that too. I think we've both been positive contributors. How can we better prove ourselves...?-Phoenix 16:07, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Phoenix, if there is some need for after-hours edits, because of schedule, or the like, please contact me! Unlike some others, I am expert at conflict resolution and communication, and will not let you down. My contact information is on my User page. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:29, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, TK, that is what the verse says. My favorite film is Breaker Morant, and this is the epitaph that he asked for when he was executed. There's no sinister intent here, purely an homage to my favorite film and my religion. As far as after hours edits, I live in Arizona and work a late shift so often cannot contribute until the late evening when most of the east coast sysops are offline and the edit ability is locked unless you have the rights. If I were really a troll, would I have added the edits that I have, and made the effort to undo the work of vandals? Matthew1036 17:41, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

General Reply to the above

We make numerous decisions about editors' authority and granting or revoking specific privileges, including blocking. None of these decisions should be taken personally. These decisions reflect our commitment to making this the best online encyclopedia on the internet. It is not productive for us to explain in detail each and every decision about editors' authority and we do not intend to do so. Often the reasons are obvious and we will not allow ourselves to be distracted by demands to discuss the obvious. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:56, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Hoji and I have been working hard and I believe we have something satifactory

Dear Andy,

I took from our recent correspondence that you saw the long term benefit of putting a citations needed template on a unsourced or very undersourced article early rather than trying to fix the sourcing problem late in the game after the original author is long gone. Fixing the problem early saves time and increases article quality early.

Well as you might know, I am not too wiki tech saavy so Hoji gave me a lot of help and we did a lot of tweeking and here is what we finally came up with: Template:Uncited. Please let me know how you like it. Conservative 15:43, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

There is also a light-blue version at Template:Uncited2, and both of these can be tweaked further. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 15:52, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

  • I don't find the clutter acceptable, nor do I find two out of 25 or so devising ideas to help of benefit either. Our policy, Hoji and Conservative, is to contact all the other active sysops and discuss. Templates don't really seem a proven way to acheive what we want so far as citations go. Perhaps with some emailing around, gathering advice from your fellow Sysops, a consensus might be reached. I do know that inclusion of all, rather than excluding many, seems to work better for things like this. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:14, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't see what you mean by "clutter"; they were properly documented at Template:Uncited/doc, and listed at Help:Templates. According to Conservative, our goal was to use these kind of templates more vigorously than we have, in order to encourage better citations. And we were not "excluding" anybody; we were working quite publicly, and anybody is welcome to help. It is not my personal style to actively solicit opinions about menial tasks such as this. Now that we know you have an interest in it, TK, we can be sure to include you. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 20:16, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
  • According to one Sysop, without discussing with all the rest? You find that acceptable problem solving? What encourages citations are editors doing what they are supposed to do. Failing that, a personal post on their page is what I employ, asking them to document their contributions, and failing that, asking other editors to help, or finding the cites myself, which is the job of a sysop anyway.
  • We have been round and round about this before. It is simply not acceptable for Sysops not to seek input from the others before springing ideas publicly, and expecting them to be considered. It is also pretty rude to by-pass our in-place peer review. By clutter, I mean that Andy has always asked that we use less templates on articles, not more. Understand my objection isn't to how the template was made, but rather the unilateral action of doing it without emailing and getting input from your peers. And your comment about working publicly is false, unless you tell others what you are doing. Do you really want to claim on such a large site as this, others would be able to see what you are doing? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:23, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
TK, I contacted Andy and he has been aboard this "need citing template" from the gitgo. He wanted a experiment of 30 templates but since I didn't want to do 30 template postings I merely did 17. So far the results have been positive and 2 articles were immediately cited and another one was cited also but incorrectly (they didn't use footnotes). Lastly, I really don't have time to send messages to 30 Sysops and then communicate back and forth with 30 or so Sysops. Just the intitial exchange would be 60 or so messages. I think we need to come up with something more practical. Andy, Hoji, and I believe that are articles could use more citing and I don't see a more practical alternative. Conservative 20:26, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Just a minute, Conservative. Why do you think you need to send thirty separate messages in order to say the same thing to thirty people? Can't you create your own distribution list in your e-mail client in order to get all the names? Or, as TK suggests below: can't you publish your concerns on the special Sysops page that we created for the very purpose? If you "don't have time," then at least ask one of us to help you solve the problem!--TerryHTalk 20:43, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
  • I care nothing about your time issues, Conservative, I only know the majority of us manage to communicate every day, many times a day, and run things by each other. And if Andy told you to actually do all that without posting on the Sysop page, which you know is there, Conservative, he was wrong as well. Here we work by consensus, as we are a group. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:34, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
TerryH and TK, I just sent you some information via pvt email that I think you will find very important regarding this issue. I think it makes a very important point using relevant data. Conservative 21:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)


Was it reached? Bohdan 00:00, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

217 new entries today (yesterday). I think we came up just short of the one-day record! Maybe tomorrow we can break it. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:03, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Ack. So close. DanH 00:04, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm working as hard as I can. I've done about 30 between yesterday and the day before.--Elamdri 03:18, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
Good stuff, Elamdri! We've got about 24 new entries as of 10:08 am (NYC time) Sunday. We could take another run at breaking the record today, which stands at about 225 new entries in one day. I'll start adding now.--Aschlafly 10:09, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you

Thanks for the welcome. I've been reading the guidelines here and I really like them. So much better than Wikipedia's. I've already transfered my Brad Stine article from Wiki, but I plan to read more articles here first before really getting into editing. I want to get a better feel of how things are done here. Reading the rules is good, but seeing them in action is a thousand times better. Jinxmchue 01:16, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy article issue

Andy, as you can clearly see, User:Scorpio came directly to you with a complaint about User:TK. User:TK unilaterally removed this discussion from this talk page. I have restored it. RobS 21:01, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy article issue

Dear Mr. Aschlafly, I appreciate your support of my work on the McCarthy page but I'm alarmed to find that Sysop-TK is not a fan of my contributions nor of those of RobS. He stated that, "I am a bit uneasy with just two editors 'bragaining' their way through what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a personal opinion piece." It distresses me to be told that the work that I spent countless hours contributing and carefully footnoting is being called essentially garbage. I have stated that I will cease contributing any further and will revert all my work on the McCarthy article if that perception of my contributions remains unchanged. I don't want to be a contributor of worthless information. That was never my intent. As for the time I have spent here, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute. Please let me know if I can help in any other article. Best Regards. Scorpio 22:02, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, perhaps if you get some rest, the drama level will subside. I said, on the talk page, I was uncomfortable with basically only two people, making bargains for how the article was going to read. Do you think it "scholarly" to horse-trade what facts to include, and how they are presented? Perhaps too much has been dealt with via email? Am I missing something? Did you think RobS was the only other editor on CP, beside yourself, interested in the topic? Your work is appreciated, Scorpio, always has been! But taking any form of disagreement as an attack, and posting all over this wiki, especially to the Brother's Schlafly ( and saying just how much you love their Mom)....well, that is a bit much. To me, the use of the 57 figure is just another Liberal Deceit. If you think my saying that makes you a contributor of worthless information, I am powerless to stop you. Voicing that "concern" could not be intrepreted by anyone rational as a criticism of either of you personally, or the superb nature of the work. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:39, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
It's not about getting rest, it's about clearing up your misconceptions regarding the situation in question. You called Rob's work and my work basically worthless because you think it's written as a personal piece. Not true. Everything is cited, footnoted, and referenced. There are no bargains being made, only agreements as to how best to layout an article that needs a lot of work. This is common in Wiki; it's called "cooperation". The info that Rob has added since he and I have been working together is fantastic. My only concern was with the "205 quote". That quote is the "liberal deceit" you are talking about. Yes, the number is correct but the quote Rob posted is emphatically wrong. I have provided several references supporting my position. Again, have you taken the time to check them out? If you did, you would find that the quote is wrong. McCarthy even addressed this on the Senate floor and gave his explanation about the 205 number. That info has been available for over 57 years yet people are still making that mistake. Some are doing it on purpose and some are doing it as part of their hatred of Senator McCarthy. Since the quote is wrong, has no citation, and it actually conflicts with the accurate info right above it, it should simply be removed and then an explanation given as to how exactly the 205 number came into play. It's so simple it would all of 5 minutes to do it. Plus, the info comes from Wikipedia, which we all know (I better than most) is a horrible source for such articles. WP standards are verifiabilty, not truth. So if you have a bunch of ant-McCarthy books spreading the same lie, it doesn't matter what the truth is because verifiability is the important factor.
Rob and I have not been communicating by email, so you misunderstood that as well. In answer to your question, yes, you are missing something. If you would just ask, we would tell you what's going on. As for editing the McCarthy article, Rob and I have contributed heavily to an article that had been locked and left for dead. Contrary to what you said, I'm not taking any disagreement as an attack, I never said anything like that.
As for my comments to the Schlafly brothers, that's my business. I have great respect for those guys as my User page makes clear. And, yes, I have been a great fan of their mom for over 20 years. This is the first chance I had to make that comment (and I made it only once in one place) and your attempt to attack my enthusiasm for Mrs. Schlafly is ridiculous. Sorry you don't appreciate my praise of this great lady.
As for the 57 figure, sorry but it's not another "liberal deceit". It's fact. There are few people who know as much about McCarthy as I do. I have plenty of sources and references to back up my statements. I have spoken with James Drummey and William Grigg about McCarthy and they both know I have been working on a book on McCarthy. How do you think I was able to make so many contributions?
Lastly, your comment that my work is nothing more than a "personal piece" is the equivalent of saying that the work is not scholarly. Don't you even realize that? It's very insulting so not only should you pick your words carefully but you should be aware of the implications of what you are saying. As a Syspop, that responsibility is even greater. Since it seems you didn't really mean to phrase your comments in that manner (posting comments online is often the worst way to convey emotions) I will continue working on the article and consider this matter closed. I hope we can move together forward and work in a positive fashion. Thank you. Scorpio 10:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Scorpio, Thank you for your hard work on Joseph McCarthy. You contributions have been magnanimous and extremely well researched. Conservapedia Commandment 1 states, "Everything you post must be true and verifiable," but you appear to be asking Conservapedia to take a stand in an extremely controversial, ongoing partisan debate. That McCarthy leaked the number 205, either at the podium on February 9, 1950 in Wheeling West Virgina, or in press interviews immediately afterwards, is indisputable. And it is hard to say "McCarthy was right," when McCarthy himself did not know what he was right about back in 1950.
We have kept the line of division between spies and security risks in two separate lists in the Joseph McCarthy article. The number 205 that McCarthy leaked came from J. Edgar Hoover [16], but McCarthy only refered to them as Communist party members, or security risks, who were allegedly still working in government. Wrong. The FBI knew the true name identies of 205 spies in 1950, some of which had never worked in government, and those that did had already been removed. McCarthy began backpeddling, perhaps because he knew he had inadvertantly leaked classified information. Hoover and McCarthy were not seeking to work from that list of 205. They were seeking to identify the remainder of unidentified code names from the Venona project.
What is the significance of this? The real target of McCarthy's credibility is not a man who has been dead for 50 years, it is a living person -- Ann Coulter. We have experienced enough of Coulter being targeted, slandered, and smeared right here in Conservapedia. So, our objective remains, not taking a loosing issue in an ongoing controversial partisan debate, but to adhere to our own rules. Thank you. RobS 11:45, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, thank you for your kind words. The best that I can do regarding the "205 figure" in use in McCarthy's speech is to suggest that you read Buckley's book, pages 41-61. After reading that very clear explanation, I'm confident you will be sure that the 205 number was not used in the manner in which it was suggested. Remember, we are dealing with an article on Joseph McCarthy, not Ann Coulter. We have a responsibility to provide the facts regarding McCarthy and the events surrounding his life. The 205 quote as it stands now in the article is not a correct quote so at some point in time we need to either make it clear that it is merely "liberal deceit" or edit it out completely. We can't just leave it in a state of limbo where we don't say that it is accurate or that's inaccurate. Here's an idea for a way to make this work: Why don't you address the 205/6 number in the Venona section and let me address the fallacy of that inaccurate statement in the "United States Senate" section right after where I addressed the "57 cases" paragraph. That way, we address the liberal deceit of the "205 story" and then in the Venona section you could explain what McCarthy was talking about when he mentioned 205 cases as he stated on the Senate floor. That sounds good, doesn't it? In fact, it's better than just eliminating the 205 claim altogether!! I like that a lot. What do you think? Let me know. This should work very well. (I'll post this in the McCarthy Discussion page as well). Scorpio 12:11, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
  • I am waiting for your apology, Scorpio, for posting several places I dislike (not a fan) of the contributions of either Rob or yourself. From my one comment here, saying I didn't like horse-trading, you created a trollish issue, a red herring. I expect an apology, as I don't take kindly to trolls. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 12:51, 27 June 2007 (EDT)


The word "Chimera" is spelled wrong on the Main Page.--Elamdri 15:48, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

No, it's spelled correctly in its plural form. Thanks anyway, though.--Aschlafly 15:52, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Not to be a butthead, but I do think thats wrong. I think you are thinking of the other way of spelling "Chimera," which is "Chimaera" (A more Anglo-English spelling of the word). If you look online, all the dictionaries say "Chimera" Pl. Chimeras. Again, not trying to be eggheaded, just don't want someone to use that as a stupid excuse to bash the site.--Elamdri 16:21, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't have any ax to grind here, but chimera is from the Latin and the plural form would be to add an "e", as many websites do.--Aschlafly 16:48, 27 June 2007 (EDT)


May I ask why you rolled back my edits to Chimera? JoshuaZ 22:05, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I think I know this one! see Talk:Chimera. Bohdan 22:20, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Right, Bohdan. That's what talk pages are for. Thanks for pointing that out to JoshuaZ.--Aschlafly 22:36, 27 June 2007 (EDT)


I'm sorry if you distrust me. Could you please talk to me by e-mail to my user account e-mail address, if you do distrust me? I'd like to build a positive relationship.-Phoenix 23:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you ...

... for the welcome! I'm only new here, but I think I managed to get blocked from editing earlier, for some reason. I'll download some of the rules and read them while you're off-line. Thanks - Alison 02:21, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 00:07, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok, Andy.

I am working on it.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:34, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Teen Challenge

I dredged up links for the Teen Challenge persecution and placed them on Talk:Main Page. Since I am horrible at writing brief summaries, i was hoping you could do so and post to the Main Page. If this will take too much time out of your schedule please let me know and I will do it myself. Geo.Complain! 03:02, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Geo, I looked at this but it seemed too complex for me to summarize. I'm not sure the issues are entirely clearcut, but please feel free to try to summarize in a headline if you like. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:18, 29 June 2007 (EDT)


Andy, I have decided to leave Conservapedia because of the negative, anti-Mormon behavior here. It has been made VERY clear, that I am not considered a Christian on this site. Even though I appreciate the Conservative, Christian views, lately I feel a negative spirit on Conservapedia. Except for the obvious anti-Mormon bias on the site, I think it's a good site for other Conservatives. Godspeed. Crocoite 10:17, 29 June 2007 (EDT).
Crocoite, obviously I'm sorry you feel there is a "negative spirit." You remain most welcome here. As a wiki, this site has a constant give-and-take, and frequent conflict. Each day, each hour, and even each minute the entries improve. So I encourage you to be patient. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:22, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Ditto what Andy said. I think you can see I have been taking some rather stern measures to improve people's outlook, and focus them more intently on working together, as a group, rather than concentrating on their own personal religious or political outlook. We are building an encyclopedia here! All else must (and will) take a back seat to cooperation and progress. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:09, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Thank you Andy and TK. After your positive comments and having some time to de-stress, I have decided to stay at Conservapedia. I will try to be more patient as a sysop and work with TK to avoid these problems in the future. Godspeed. Crocoite 03:11, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
Great, Crocoite! You made my day. Welcome back!!!--Aschlafly 10:34, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Request for upload rights

Mr. Schlafly, I have a request. We now have an editor Samian with us who is from wikipedia under the same name [17]. You can see his wikipedia related contributions here: [18]. He is here because he is frustrated with wikipedias pro-Putin bias, which is also why I am here too. He has requested the ability to have upload privleges, as so far I have had to upload things for him. I was wondering if you would consider this. Thank you. Bohdan 00:07, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Bohdan, based on your recommendation I will grant him upload privileges now. Please continue to work with him and monitor and assist him. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:16, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, while everybody's here, I'd like to request upload rights, too. Granted, I don't know when I'll use it, as I don't write much, but it would be nice to have it there.--Jimmyz 00:21, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

I've just put a welcome message on your talk page, which includes links to some pages that you should read. One of those points to user rights (particularly the last section), which is pertinent to your request here. Philip J. Rayment 00:56, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Hezbollah Agent caught in Iraq, possibly Iranian backed. --Elamdri 03:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Team contest

I would like to have you on my team for our new team contest. Please let me know if you are able to compete. ~ SharonTalk 09:31, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

I am greatly honored and I accept! This will be a lot of fun and a tremendous learning experience for all the competitors. Let the best team win!--Aschlafly 09:42, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk Page

Is there some reason why my talk page is locked to unsysoped users? Can I unblock it? Thanks. --BethTalk 12:40, 3 Y July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, Beth, feel free to lock and unlock your talk page however you like.--Aschlafly 12:55, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks!--BethTalk 12:56, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

PF Fox

Andy, I believe there was a distinct lack of transparancy in TK's manipulation of User:Fox [19] to block User:PF Fox infinitely; the issue of PF Fox off site criticism was raised by me, however there was little discussion of the criticism and/or what now appears a retalitory action, and this retalitory action was taken by TK who did not do it himself, but got Fox to do it for him. I request you look into this matter. Thank you. RobS 13:09, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

PF Fox's self-confessed raison d'etre was to be a pseudonym for Pamela Troy in order to prepare her series of CP-mocking articles now appearing on the web. She had previously been warned for trolling, anyway, and was not exactly much of a contributor except in the trolling sense. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 13:17, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
That appears to be the substance of a discussion you had with TK; TK did not have that discussion with anyone else. TK should have voiced those concerns with other Sysops first, and did not. I raised the issue, and he did not respond with any of that. The question is, the appearance of a retalitory action, which TK took upon himself, but did not do the action himself. I am asking Andy to review the matter. RobS 13:25, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

TK, Conservative, and Ray Martinez and the Charles Darwin article


Ray Martinez and I have put scholarly material regarding the Charles Darwin article saying to the public he was an agnostic but privately saying in his private journal that he was a materialist/atheist. I uncovered some material from a very scholarly source stating that Darwin stated a year before he died that he often had overwhelming feelings that the natural world had been designed. I also uncovered much material from medical journals and a science journal stating that Darwin's evolutionary ideas and criticism of his evolutionary ideas caused him to have physical ilness caused by psychiatric reasons or psychobiological reasons. I also mentioned that creationist state that Darwin's guilt or fear was the cause of his illness. I was about to cite a notable psychiatrist who concurred with the creationists.

The problem is that TK wants to cover up this material and Ray and I have spent much time on this matter and TK offers no justification for his censorship. I also find if troubling that TK used a very liberal and unscholarly site to defend his position until he was upbraided. People come to Conservapedia to find different material from Wikipedia. I find TK's behavavior regarding the removal of unflattering material about Charles Darwin to be very troubling and counterproductive. Conservative 14:15, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy, TK has twice now used this source, [20][21] in the Charles Darwin article. Here is an excerpt from Stanley Kurtz of The National Review regarding this site:
"What is the real agenda of the religious far Right? I’ll tell you what it is. These nuts want to take over the federal government and suppress other religions through genocide and mass murder, rather than through proselytizing. They want to reestablish slavery. They want to reduce women to near-slavery by making them property, first of their fathers, and then of their husbands. They want to execute anyone found guilty of pre-martial, extramaritial, or homosexual sex. They want to bring back the death penalty for witchcraft.... that hasn’t stopped conspiracy mongers on the Left from imagining a murderous Christian plot to destroy America. I’ve found a number of Lefty sites that link to the following description of Dominionism at" [22]
Here's a link to the original article. [23] User:Conservative and I have discussed using this same extreme leftist, hate-filled, and bigoted site in the the Theory of evolution, Creationism, and Young earth creationism article, and we found much better sources instead. [24]
I am requesting you review the material here, and the appropriateness to Conservapedia linking to . I am available for any questions. Thank you. RobS 14:16, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
I haven't been able to sort through all this. But I am grateful for learning from Ray's edits that agnostic was first invented in 1869 by the evolution promoter Huxley to make atheism and evolution more palatable to the public. I was so impressed by that insight (and how phony agnosticism is) that I repeated it a little while ago in an interview by Fox News. So, needless to say, this information should not be censored here.--Aschlafly 14:41, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Andy, I shorted the Darwin's sickness material in the Charles Darwin article to make it more concise and created another article called Darwin's sickness for people who want to know more. Conservative 14:50, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
I have reviewed conversations since unlocking the Darwin page and removing the Scientology link, and do not see were Ray Martinez (a) engaged in namecalling or (b) was warned 3 times. Ray Martinez's block should be rescinded. RobS 15:29, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

User:Ray Martinez is unblocked as of today by myself. Karajou 15:54, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. I wanted to hear from DanH first. RobS 16:00, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

I believe this is the edit that TK objected to, keeping in mind that he and myself had previously edited the Charles Darwin page at least once: DanH 16:06, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Ray's edits for the article involved were easily confirmed. I hate having a truckload of books here at home! Karajou 16:19, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

While the reprisal may have been overly harsh, I didn't particularly appreciate being called a vandal by somebody who has never so much as written on my talk page. DanH 16:24, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Ray Martinez also, on the Darwin talk page, engaged in several later bits of name calling and insults. Just read the talk page from the top.... That is why I blocked him, nothing was removed from the article at all. Conservative is the one who kept in the bit about Darwin's claim of agnosticism. And it is supported on several works. And it was Conservative who first issued a warning, on the talk page, to Ray, to tone it down,
  • where did this happen? Please provide a diff. RobS 20:45, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

and stop with the insults. I don't have a problem with the content, so long as the bit about Darwin claiming to be an agnostic is left, as Conservative did. This stuff about me having some idealogical stake here is just that. Ray M. has a history on that page, and posting on others of insults and name calling. That is what the block was about. Do not delude yourselves into thinking it is something else. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:57, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Who called who an idiot? [25] This is precisely the sort of thing intended to damage our credibility and reputation. And the blocking of good editors, unblocking of trolls? Wiederlich. RobS 18:03, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
TK, I don't remember telling Ray to tone it down. Can you show that I told Ray to tone it down? Also, you stated in the block of Ray that he had been warned by 3 Sysops regarding his behavior. Can you verify this as well? Conservative 18:29, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Ray's accusing a sysop of being a closet liberal/Darwinist is a harsh accusation; accusing somebody of being something other than what they claim to be. Such unfounded accusations must not be allowed to stand on this site. DanH 18:34, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Conservative, it was your post, on the talk page, asking him to do so. You find it. It wasn't a big deal, until he called Dan's and my small edits, which didn't change the tone of the article one bit, that he called us vandals, on your own page, and we both warned him then, and he was blocked for 24hours. Then he came back to the talk page, with the stuff Dan just posted about, and also posted insults and denied his own words on this page, since moved to the Darwin chat. I repeat, I don't have an idealogical difference to what is there, merely was trying to keep the bit about his own claims of agnosticism, which is valid, IMO. If his own claims are refuted by other evidence, that is fine too, as you agreed to, so long as his own claims are also presented. This is something being whipped up for other reasons, not to do with the article. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:01, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Dear Andy/Site Owner:
The article on Charles Darwin is inaccurate. Ernst Mayr said Darwin was an Atheist and the article quotes Mayr incompletely cutting off the Atheist fact. The comments by Conservative that start this discussion section are misleading and deceptive. The comments by Conservative imply that the article indicates that Darwin was an Atheist. The article DID NOT (and as of this writing) DOES NOT say that. Why has Conservative made a false claim? I am sure it is a genuine error since anyone can click to the article and see that what he writes above and what the article actually says does not match.
In addition, the article quotes Harvard Professor Janet Browne saying that Darwin believed that religion had no rational foundation; that its origin was natural. This means that Darwin believed the origin of religion was from man and not God = Atheist, yet the article, as it now sits, as edited by Conservative, departs and contradicts this statement by Browne.
Wikipedia says Darwin was an Agnostic. Why should Conservapedia repeat their error when we have plenty of mainstream scholars that say Darwin was an Atheist? Do we not exist to counter their lies? When Darwin CLAIMED to be an Agnostic he was speaking in the strict context of biological First Cause. I had made this edit in the article but Conservative erased it and reverted back to the out of context quote mine - why? I posted the scholarly source cite (Darwin himself). Why has Conservative erased the exact quote by Darwin himself and the context for the error riddled nonsense that now appears in the article? The present edit by Conservative is also full of grammatical errors. I think it be good policy that major articles be written by persons who have basic English literary skills. We all make mistakes but the present edit by Conservative is grammatically inexcusable.
I must be able to speak freely here. In my opinion the integrity of your site is being compromised by double agents that covertly "work" for Wikipedia. Recently, as we know, the Los Angeles Times said some nice things about Conservapedia. I am sorry to have to say this but we have no reason to be happy. It is an insult to be complimented by the ultra-liberal and Christian hating pro-evolution L.A. Times. Like the New York Times, they are the mouthpiece of Satan in this world. Andy: anyone who fights to have Charles Darwin not be an Atheist, but an Agnostic, is a double agent wolf dressed in sheeps clothing OR they are genuinely confused OR ignorant. The evidence that Darwin was an Atheist who hid behind a label of Agnosticism is a historic fact. The only evidence that we really need to know Darwin was an Atheist is the fact that all Atheists support and defend him. Atheists would never support a person to the degree that they support Charles Darwin, if he was not an Atheist (= invulnerable logic).
Andy, you presently have at least two Moderators that are double agents. The Bible says Jesus chose Judas knowing that he was a son of the devil from the beginning. We know Judas betrayed Jesus to His face with a kiss. You, too, have two Moderators that have abused their power by blocking me without any cause two times now and they are Darwinists. Nobody can produce any words by me worthy of blocking and nobody can produce words by me that place the word vandal and a Moderator's name in the same sentence or post. I suggest that you permanently ban these two persons and send a message to the Internet world: double agents will be indentified and banned. As for a claim of Christianity, anyone can claim to be a Christian, like Adolf Hitler and Mafia bosses. You are what you argue and do (and not as you claim) if the two contradict.
A camel is a horse made by commitee. The article on Darwin is a camel. I ask that I be given sole editing control of the Darwin article and that it be protected from editing except by yourself, Tim S., or RobS and two other Moderators of whom their names have temporarily escaped my memory. Please email me if you want the names of the double agents.
Thanks for reading this message.
Ray Martinez 7-5-07
Ray, it's odd that you want to participate when you've claimed elsewhere that you'll never participate in any wiki project again, and that you think the sysops here are young earth fundy morons and unfaithful a**holes. NonXtianConservative 12:28, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

NonXtianConservative is a double agent. He is actually hardcore liberal Muslim Darwinist, Stile4aly at the TalkOrigins usenet [26]. Here is the proof from his own mouth. I bet if you check the IP adresses that they will match:[27]
If link does not work, then our double agent has erased it. But I have content saved at another site.
Ray 7-5-07
  • Attacking those who question your motives, without answering their questions, is a well-worn, and anti-intellectual trick. The point remains your contentious behavior, Ray, and your many run-ins with our editors and Sysops like (here and other wiki's I might add), and your intemperate remarks, and general scorn for anyone who dares to disagree with you. All suitable behavior alone in ones own home, or office, writing a paper, but hardly suitable for participation in something like a wiki, which requires give and take. I will ask you once more, please keep this discussion on the Darwin Discussion page. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:33, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
I think we need some civility here. Ray Martinez has presented convincing and well researched interpretative history. TK has literal sources supported by a personal POV.
The stigma of atheism is well known, as is the use of "codewords." And historians of 19th century Europe, of which I am one, have written about this for years. Even in America, as late as 1984, Gary Hart was the first Presidential candidate in U.S. to state his religious affiliation as "none." Some say, this killed his chances right there.
This appears to be an editor making the facts fit his personal POV, and using a far leftist, anti-Christian, and bigotted source to support his view. There really isn't more to discuss, other than reprisals and meatpuppets who suddenly appear to support the editor. RobS 22:56, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

This is Andy's talk page and I am speaking to him. Your misrepresentations of me are explained by the fact that you have blocked me twice without just cause. I will not give place to your blackmail. If Andy does not want me posting here then he will tell me. Where did Andy give you permission to speak for him? You owe me several apologies and I expect them publically. You do not speak for the Sysops here as you claim. Several of these persons support me so your claim above is false. Two of these Sysops reversed your abuse of power by unblocking me.
Ray 7-5-07
Ray, the material I put in has to do with Darwin saying he was a materialist. We have the term materialist in highlight so that people can see what a materialist is. If you are a materialist you are an atheist. I have Mayr stating that Darwin was a materialist because you indicated that Mayr stated this and the CMI article concurrs. I do think it is undesirable to have a note saying that (materialist = more or less an atheist) which is a paraphrase of what you said as I think the highlighted feature is more scholarly/precise and better looking. I disagree with TK shutting off the Charles Darwinarticle to general editing but I don't want to get into a protracted discussion of whether or not the article should be shut off to general editing as I am working on some other material at this time. I do think that you are the most knowledgable person on Darwin at the site at this time so if you want to contribute new paragraphs or sections to the Charles Darwin article please do so here: User:RayMartinez/Darwin and I would be happy to put any quality material you put there in the Charles Darwin article. I would also encourage you to ask Andy to open up the article for general editing for a time so you can edit it. Conservative 16:20, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
I did not say "(materialist = more or less an atheist)" MAYR SAID IT THAT IS WHY IT WAS IN QUOTE MARKS. You do know that when text is quoted off that the quoted off text was spoken by the reference, don't you? You also snipped Darwin's own quote and the context of his Agnostic claim.
You have snipped what Mayr said, not me. And if you read my message to Andy above you will see that I have already asked him for article control. Common sense says persons who are evolutionists or Darwinists should have no say whatsoever in the Charles Darwin articles or an any articles on evolution. If Darwinists are allowed to control these pages how do you expect the truth to get written? I have also asked Andy to ban the two Moderators who have blocked me unjustly. NOBODY has yet to produce ONE link containing words that deserve blocking, yet I was blocked twice by these pro-Darwin double agents.
Ray 7-5-07
Ray, I will work on the Mayr/Darwin material in light of your above comment. I don't fully understand your sentence "You also snipped Darwin's own quote and the context of his Agnostic claim." If you could be more precise it would be helpful. Secondly, do I need to periodically check on User:RayMartinez/Darwin Do you want to add more paragraphs and sections to the Charles Darwin article and have me transfer them in? In some ways, I do agree with TK shutting off the article to general editing but I think it should be done after you, Ray Martinez, add more material. I would like to see a more informative article that would have a small chance of rising to the top of the search engines. However, with all the Darwin "worshippers" that might be unrealistic. Conservative 16:46, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
I believe I changed the article to your satisfaction. Secondly, I think I was too pessimistic earlier about a Conservapedia article on Charles Darwin rising near the top of the search engines. Darwin is like Hillary Clinton in that he is a very polarizing figure. There are a lot of people who disparage Darwin so if you do a good job the Conservapedia Charles Darwin article might rise near the top of the search engines. You would have to create a high quality article but perhaps it is doable. The conservapedia Theory of evolution article is currently ranked #25 and recently it was #30 so it is rising in the search engine rankings. Do you want to contribute to User:RayMartinez/Darwin and have me tranfer material to the Charles Darwin article? Conservative 17:06, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Naughty Dems

Hi...I don't know if this is appropriate for the front page, but I thought you might at least find this news item (below) amusing. To wit, the local Dem Party held a fund-raiser featuring strippers as bartenders. Better still, the (Dutch) name of the golf course/club where it was held translates as "In Spite of the Devil". Heh. --PeteVan 14:25, 3 July 2007 (EDT)


I dont understand how could it be. It is already fixed. I am sure I didnt do it. I dont know how effective could be an exterior hand.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:14, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

I do not think it was a mistake since I was working only with new users and from User creation log. Any way we will see. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:26, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Its easily done, though - I blocked myself yesterday :D (hey, now there's a thought - can we get points for blocking ourselves in the competition? Or will they be deducted :P ) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:28, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

I definitely think this should be on the Main Page

A story about American and Iraqi forces working together to clean up the mess of a town that al Qaeda sacked. The atrocities in the article go beyond words. May God grant us the serenity to accept the deaths of these innocents as things we cannot change, and may He grant us the strength and the courage to bring those who did this to justice-Amen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elamdri (talk)

That is a powerful link. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Your prayer is much appreciated also.
I don't know about the front page. This is strong stuff. I defer to other Sysops about this.--Aschlafly 21:33, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
I say yes, put it on the front page. Certain people who "don't wanta study war no more" have to see this. More to the point, every American who doubted that we should be in Iraq, needs to see this. This is what "fight and slay the infidels wheresoever ye find them" (Surah 9:5) really means.--TerryHTalk 22:33, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

My reasons for wanting this for the front page are twofold. One: I believe that when mankind discovers evil it it's truest form, it is his duty to lay it bare for all to see. I don't think that we need to politicize or polarize this issue. These are the things that galvanize the American spirit, be us conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, black, white, ect. Beheading children, planting bombs in the corpses of children, are acts of evil. There is no need to argue semantics, try and make the term "evil" arbitrary and ambiguous. This is senseless violence against innocents that posed NO threat and it violates everything that we hold dear in society. I don't know how you could quantify an act as evil any other way. By laying these people out for who they truly are, I think it not only helps to legitimize efforts but also to help re-unite the global community. We may disagree on things from time to time as people, states, nations, and religions. However, at the same time, the majority of us can agree that these people have no place in our world.
While the preceding paragraph was about evil, my second reason for it being on the main page is this: Hope. While this story displays the depth of evil that humans are able to achieve, it also gives us a light of hope. A combined effort by Iraqi and American forces. An American commander scouting into the most dangerous area with only Iraqi soldiers as an escort. Iraqi police offers having to be restrained from executing the perpetrators by American soldiers. This shows that while We may not always agree, we know that it is possible for us to work together with the common, which at least in me instills a sense of hope. History has shown that while humans are capable of great evil, humanity as a whole has often risen to the occasion, uniting to defy those that create evil.
With the spiel out of the way, my suggestion is to find a more positive picture in the article, and then put a powerful disclaimer that the images contained within the piece may frighten and disturb. Honestly, they are not the most graphic of images to come out of the war, but they are disturbing. However, I think people need a good shock every once in a while to remind them.--Elamdri 23:11, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
While I appreciate the story, I would like to correct you on your quote mining of the Quran. You reference Sura 9:5 from the Quran but fail to mention the context in which the verse occurs. 9:5 does talk about slaying idolators (not infidels) but contextually this refers to a very specific case in Muslim history where peace had been made between the Muslims and idolatrous Arabian tribes in the area. Many of these tribes violated the peace agreements and turned against the Muslims. Sura 9:1 - 9:4 state that despite this betrayal, the Muslims should wait 4 months until the sacred months (the months of Ramadan and the time required for the Hajj) had passed and only then to counter attack, but not to attack the tribes who had remained faithful to the peace agreements, and even then to accept and take into their protection any of the idolatrous tribes that sought their protection.
Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are certainly vile, but please don't try to pretend that they represent mainstream Islam or that the Quran incites violence any moreso than any other holy book. NonXtianConservative 00:13, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
OK, let's post this. I'm looking for a picture to use with the story on our front page, but he asserts copyright on all his. Do you think he'll mind if we use one (with his copyright notice)?--Aschlafly 23:58, 3 July 2007 (EDT),2933,287647,00.html Has a link to the Fox News report on his story. they have a few pictures without his copyright on them, with photo accreditation underneath instead. I don't forsee it being a big issue, Definitely leave his copyright, I think this falls under fair use, as we're not making a profit and you use this as an academic resource Andy.--Elamdri 01:40, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Done. Thanks for being persistent and for providing the link.--Aschlafly 02:02, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Grading needed

Need you to review this: Essay:The Obsolete Man, just to see if it meets CP guidelines. Karajou 02:18, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore's Son arrested for drug suspicion --Elamdri 15:56, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Newsworthy it is. Thanks for identifying it. But I take no joy in it, as much as I oppose Al Gore.--Aschlafly 16:13, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Why is it newsworthy, and not just gossip? He may well have a legitimate explanation for those prescription drugs. It is a minor offense anyway. RSchlafly 16:20, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree. We should take the moral high ground and keep the discussion on the issues and the candidates. DanH 16:26, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Right. By saying it is newsworthy I was just acknowledging the obvious. And, alas, I see it is top of the news on AOL, so that observation was correct.
Three different crimes are alleged here by the son of a potential presidential candidate. But this is also gossipy, which is why I wouldn't put it in Al Gore's entry here or on our front page. Wikipedia loves stuff like that, and gossip mongers are a big part of Wikipedia's traffic.--Aschlafly 16:32, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Mr Schlafly, I congratulate you on your honorable stance. Many people would have made cheap capital out of something like this. However, your attitude exemplifies true Conservative values. BrianCo 16:57, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
  • True enough. The "Wisdom of the Crowd" is usually none. Mobocracies often lynch people with little evidence, and unfortunately once a reputation is dragged through the mud, all the retractions in the world cannot undo the damage done. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:34, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Personally, I'm just trying to bring to light anything interesting I happen to find. I am a member of tons of forums, and interesting things like this crop up all the time. As with the one on al Qaeda slaughtering a town, its up to the community as Andy said. This story, more or less, is political propaganda. The only real relevance it has is to try and discredit Al Gore's candidacy, despite whether or not his adult son's supposed drug usage even has anything to do with him.--Elamdri 18:12, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Thank you Elamdri for bringing this to our attention. It has led me to a biased way that Wikipedia treats family members of Vice Presidents, and this will be inserted into Bias in Wikipedia and perhaps on the front page also.
In Vice President Al Gore's entry on Wikipedia, there is no mention of the charges and past indiscretions of his son. In Vice President Dick Cheney's entry on Wikipedia, prominent mention is made of his adult daughter's sexuality. Wikipedia: the liberal smear factory.--Aschlafly 18:55, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Hang on a minute... Above you say that Gore's son's arrest is gossipy and as such doesn't belong on the main page or in his bio page on this site, yet you criticize Wikipedia for it not being in their article, and you now include it on your front page. That's rather hypocritical, don't you think? Additionally, Gore's son has his own page at Wikipedia where all his sins are detailed.
So which is it, Andy? Is Gore Jr's arrest gossipy and not worthy of inclusion, or should wikipedia be damned for following the guideline that you yourself lay out? NonXtianConservative 12:28, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Point of logic: Wikipedia is not being criticised for not including that gossip in the article on Al Gore, but for being inconsistent in not including that gossip whilst including gossip relating to a (more) conservative figure. So the hypocrisy charge fails. Philip J. Rayment 20:12, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Late Term Abortion

While researching and writing my article on George Tiller, it occurred to me that we do not have an article on late term abortion. I think that this is an important subject, both morally and legally, and I would like to start an article on this. Do you have any ideas for other editors who might be knowledgable about this subject? DanH 15:59, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I'll start one now. Thanks, Dan.--Aschlafly 17:24, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Correction, Dan. This does exist: partial birth abortion. Do we need another entry also for late-term?--Aschlafly 17:26, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Ah, I didn't think to look under that. Never mind. DanH 17:37, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I've just created a late term abortion page—as a redirect to partial birth abortion. Philip J. Rayment 20:09, 5 July 2007 (EDT)


Hello Andrew, are you the person I would ask about getting permission to upload images to the site? These will be to illustrate articles with appropriate images and will either be photos I took myself, or fair use images (scans of book covers for example). Good job on the encyclopedia thus far by the way, I'm enjoying editing here while Wikipedia is just downright frustrating to deal with sometimes. I'd like to help get more quality articles up here and give Wikipedia a run for its money. Parrothead 17:03, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

OK, you have uploading privileges. I look forward to your contributions.
For the benefit of everyone who might read this, we will report anyone who attempts to upload pornography to law enforcement.--Aschlafly 17:31, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks! Parrothead 17:43, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Request for Andy

Dear Andy,

I would like to significantly upgrade the Conservapedia exobiology article (I renamed your exotheology article) and origin of life articles. The exobiology article should be getting more traffic and it is now linked to the theory of evolution article. Here is my request: I have a "citation needed" in the exobiology article. If you could provide the citation it would be much appreciated. By the way, I also know a way we could get much more traffic to the exobiology article that I will share with you later. I think it will give it much more traffic than my current link within the theory of evolution article. Conservative 20:00, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Um, I just noticed this...

At the bottom of the discussion page for the main page, someone has it categorized as a logical fallacy. I don't know who did it, but I think we need to remove that.--Elamdri 20:34, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Somebody put a "logical fallacy" template on a section of the page, and that template automatically includes the category. Philip J. Rayment 20:41, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Did you remove it, I couldn't find it.--Elamdri 20:41, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
TerryH just removed it. Check the history. Philip J. Rayment 20:43, 5 July 2007 (EDT)


Andy, you reverted my edits to Homeschooling with regards to adding various non-Christian figures to the list. You then posted on my talk page that you were warning me for making an unsupported edit, however none of the individuals on the list have any citations to support their inclusion, and indeed several are easily shown to be incorrect. Moreover, the section where they were added was the "Arguably Homeschooled" section. Each of the individuals I added were almost certainly homeschooled since no such thing as primary schools existed at the time.

Why revert the inclusion of religious figures, military and historical leaders, artists, and scientists? NonXtianConservative 22:16, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't post unsupported material, as you did. You haven't identified anyone who is incorrectly on the list, as you claim here. Your removal of C.S. Lewis, who was tutored until age 10, was also wrong. I'm going to waste any more time explaining this to you. Another violation of our rules and your account will be blocked. Thank you.--Aschlafly 22:40, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

July 4 - Presidential deaths

I apologize if my suggestion for including the deaths of the three presidents on that day sounded flippant, I was not suggesting that there was any special link between the date and their deaths. I merely noted the date so that they could be commemorated as there have been previous cites in the newsline to the deaths of prominent people. Having been working on updating the infobox for all US presidents and vice-presidents the facts were fresh in my memory. BrianCo 22:33, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

BrianCo, I owe you the apology. We should have included those three presidential deaths on July 4th. That's not just trivia - it's a startling statistical improbability. It helps teach people about who the presidents were. I'll add that now. Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:40, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Global warming article

Im not sure if this is right place to ask this, but i would appriciate if some sysop would take a look at the global warming page and the discussion that has been going on there now for a quite a while. There has been no new entryes to that discussion now for several days, but even tho i think my points are well made on the talk pages, im not able to make the changes to the article as it's locked. So if some one could read the discussion thro and make the changes if he/she agrees. HeikkiL 23:01, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Ed Poor and myself have been following the discussion the last few months pretty regularly. After the weekend, I will be more than happy to discuss! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Licensing info

Is there a page somewhere on copyright issues on Conservapedia, particularly with regard to images? I was hoping to use some CC or GFDL images from Wikicommons, but a reading of Conservapedia:Copyrights seems to indicate that Conservapedia isn't compatible with those free-content licenses.

Similarly, how should I do image description pages for images I don't own? This is for fair-use images as well as images I know that are public domain under US law (expired copyrights and US federal gov't images). AManInBlack 00:53, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Our copyright is less restrictive than GFDL's cumbersome restrictions. But very little of value on Wikicommons is really GFDL-restricted. Simply look at how it got the image and you can generally get it the same way.
Fair use, public domain and govt images are easily marked in the comment section.
That said, let's see some substantive edits before engaging in uploading images, OK? Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 01:01, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Sysops only

Sure Andy.

What is the address?

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 01:06, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Oops, my mistake. Please see Sysop:User blocks.--Aschlafly 01:09, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


Do you have an idea of the starting day of the contest? It is important for the participation of my last choice. Could it be Monday 16? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 19:21, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Joaquin, I think the contest will start soon, such as tomorrow or Tuesday. We do still have to pick judges, so maybe Tuesday is more realistic. I don't see how we can wait an entire week before starting. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:35, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

GDFL and images

There has been some discussion before about the licensing of images under the GDFL on Conservapedia. I believe I have found the appropriate section that should answer this question:

Recently we've been seeing a lot of questions about the FDL's requirements for different kinds of multimedia work. People will ask what they have to do when they use an FDLed image to illustrate an article, for example, or an FDLed song as part of a movie.

In cases like these where the materials complement each other, we believe that the end result is a derivative work. So, in the examples above, this means that you would need to follow the FDL's terms for creating modifications when you release your article or film. Just because the components can be separated doesn't necessarily mean that they're not derivative. For a long time we've held a similar position about copyright for software: just because a program only optionally makes use of GNU readline, for example, doesn't suddenly excuse the author from the GPL's requirements.

If you have a particular scenario along these lines you'd like to ask about, please feel free to e-mail us. We're always happy to answer those sorts of questions.

As I read this, articles on Conservapedia that include multimedia that is licensed under the GDFL necessarly need to be licensed under the GDFL themselves. If Conservapedia does not release its content under the GDFL, then it would be a license violation. I am fairly sure that the lawyers at the FSF would be more than happy to help clarify this. --Mtur 17:51, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Mtur, we are less restrictive in objecting to reuse of our work than GDFL is. I'm a teacher and I am not going to put someone else through the aggravation and burdens that GDFL does. GDFL's requirements on reuse are a nuisance and people should work to end those requirements. Almost no images originate from GDFL, and GDFL cannot impose requirements on an image that it copied from elsewhere.--Aschlafly 18:06, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
The key bing you are less restrictive and you are releasing a derivative work under a less restrictive license than the component parts. This is against the letter and spirit of intellectual property rights (something I hold in very high regard). Even if you consider it a nuisance and wish to work against the FSF, that is what the license is. You cannot chose to ignore it without being in intentional violation of copyright law. As to images from the GDFL a quick search for 'gnu' in the namespace of images shows 25 images that mention it. [28] I am sure you would rather have this issue resolved sooner than later when it could be an even more significant part of the website. Once again, if you feel that you are not in violation, I urge you to contact the FSF lawyers[29] and get their opinion. --Mtur 18:22, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Mtur, you don't respond to any of my points. Almost no images are originally developed under GDFL. GDFL attempts to impose restrictions on reuse by teachers and students, in interference with education, without any basis for doing so. You can defend GDFL all you want, but rights cannot be asserted under GDFL in such a manner.
Do us all a favor and speak out against GDFL restrictions. Don't pretend that GDFL favors reuse when it really doesn't. We welcome reuse of our materials for legitimate purposes like education and learning, and you should join that effort. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:53, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


Fine. We are almost ready. As we have some little problems internally I would appreciate that the beginning day could be at least next Tuesday. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 00:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent for Tuesday. About rules and points at this moment I think is not convenient to be changed as our strategy is based in what we have now. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 00:46, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

The wheels are rolling. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 01:22, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

About Hoji

We are expecting a reply from User:Conservative who apparently do not have much time for the Contest as he has written.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:05, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I've sent you an email, Joaquín. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 14:06, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
It seems as though Sharon (explicitly) and Joaquín (implicitly) have endorsed my candidacy as a judge. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:18, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Joaquin expressly endorsed you also. It's a little confusing with the several pages related to this.

You'll be great! I'll add you to the confidential Judges:_____ namespace now. Well done!--Aschlafly 17:21, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Congratulations Hoji. We expect you will be hard enough with both teams. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:26, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Team 2 seems to need a player. The convenient time for us is midnight New York time (Your time zone), in about 6 hours . --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:40, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


Our chances were dubiously, now with Bohdan in your team we need a miracle. We'll see...

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:57, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Come On, Joaquin! Positive thinking now(We can win! We can win! We can win!.....)! :P--BethTalk2ME 21:04, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Bethy

I was joking...

Thanks any way... but seriously Bohdan is very good patrolling and that is something you also like to do. So careful with him.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:12, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:12, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Debora is excellent for us at this time! Please go ahead. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Do not work so much. Health also counts!  :D --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:59, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Ha ha ha. Thanks much, Joaquin!  :-) Godspeed. --Aschlafly 00:07, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding public domain works in the articles

We still have to give credit where credit is due. Just because it is public domain does not mean we shouldn't acknowledge the source. At the bottom of the article in question, we should state a disclaimer something like "This article written in part from material contributed from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships of the United States Naval Institute, which is in the public domain." Karajou 14:40, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Attribution is always welcome, but I doubt it is necessary for definitional entries. For example, I don't think a simple explanation of what an aircraft carrier is requires attribution to a specific US government site or US department. The real source of such definitions may not even be known. However, a description of a battle or something more substantive would require attribution.--Aschlafly 15:13, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Please keep in mind that we own US government works. Those are our works, often by our labor and always by our taxes. Unless attribution might be helpful to someone or might shed light on bias, it is not necessary to attribute work by ourselves as the US government.--Aschlafly 15:18, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
As I've pointed out before, that doesn't apply to me (me "owning" U.S. Government works). I forget whether Fox resides these days, but am I the only non-American in this contest? Philip J. Rayment 20:45, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Philip, the logic may not be the same for you, but the law does not draw a distinction. US government work is free for you to copy also.
I do wonder what the position of the Australian and British governments is about this copyright issue. I'd expect the British government to prohibit copying, as they still prohibit copying the King James Bible there! But perhaps the Australian government is more like the American view? Can you find out, Philip?--Aschlafly 20:59, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
I realise that I'm still able to copy from those sites. I don't think the Australian government has the same arrangements. But that doesn't bother me, as I prefer to rewrite in my own words anyway. Neither do I know about the British government, but I don't think the Authorised Version matter is relevant, as that is a special case: it doesn't come under their normal copyright laws. Philip J. Rayment 22:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Quck notes about the contest

  1. With the addition of Bohdan to team two, and the resignation of Conservative from team one, the teams are now uneven.
  2. If you have the time, please notify your team to make a record page in the style of "User:UsernameGoesHere/Contest". See User:Tash/Contest for an example.

--Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 18:56, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Hoji, how did you edit in team2's privileged namespace?  :-) You've always been one step ahead of the rest of us!!!! Don't explain on this public page, but use email. Oh, never mind. I just learned one of my teammates moved your comments to our namespace. Whew!!!--Aschlafly 19:05, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Conservative can't resign, unless Joaquin wants to pick someone new. Let's talk conservative out of resigning.--Aschlafly 19:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
I went to look at our strategy, but I couldn't. Is there something I need to do? Bohdan 19:01, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
My fault. I'll add your privileges now, Bohdan.--Aschlafly 19:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
I just did. Try viewing the page now. ~ SharonTalk 19:03, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Hello Andy, could I please be given blocking privileges for the contest? You guys don't want an unfair advantage do you? ;-) Thanks Learn together 19:08, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I support it for Learn together --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:03, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Sherman Act

The article needed a change... :) Karajou 22:54, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


I have two questions. One, how do you create so many new pages so quickly? Two, is there a list you're working from (a list of pages that need to be created)? J.Y.L.

I'm not always so quick. These entries tonight are in a field that I know quite well, and I build the entries offline using a United States government resource, which we all have rights to reuse. When I post them here, I am copying from the offline file that I built. That seems to be more efficient.--Aschlafly 01:16, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Odd history in "World History Lecture Twelve"

Hi. I really hope you're not trying to rewrite history as it would seem when you read the twelfth world history lecture.

First of all, Finland was NOT conquered by Soviet Union. Yet, your lecture states the opposite. Winter war started 30th November 1939 and ended 13th March 1940 after the signing of the Moscow Peace Treaty. About 10 % of Finland's territory was moved to the control of USSR.

Finland re-entered the war in Continuation War, which lasted from 25th June to 19th September 1944. Continuation War is somewhat what it name says - continuation to the Winter War. Yet, Finnish summer-offense of 1941 was tightly pound to the Barbarossa. After the war, peace treaty was signed in Paris 1947 and Finland once again lost the territories it had occupied, including those territories that were already moved to the USSR according to the Moscow Peace Treaty.

Finland even went to war with Germany. This war is known as Lapland War which lasted from September 1944 to April 1945. The goal of this war was to drive German troops away from Finland.

These are just fragments of whole story. For more information, check this site:

--Maryl 07:58, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Sysop:User blocks

We might have scored something with our new feature. Karajou 15:33, 10 July 2007 (EDT)


Thank you for making me a member of Team 1! I will do my best to contribute and help our team win. DeborahB. 18:34, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Hi Andy, is there any way I can be able to write to the Team1:Players? It seems a change was made recently so I can only view it. Thanks. ;-) Learn together 21:16, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
Thank you, Fox took care of it. ;-) Learn together 21:30, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

90/10 talk violater criticizes competition

It seams like the competition is who can copy paste most material from the net. Article about adela [30] Article about Adelante [31] Article about Addie Douglass [32] And so on... Currently atleast Karajou and BethanyS are copy/pasting all they can find from various sites, some goverment, some aren't. Some are copying straight from wikipedia, like RobS here:Rosa Isaak[33] and here: Max_Elitcher[34]

And i only checked the first few of the recent changes, is this really the goal of this site and the competition, to copy paste as much material as possible from various sources to this site? Why not copy the whole wikipedia while you are at it? And how about adding a link to those goverment sites copyed instead of copypasting them to here...? I don't think this competition is good for this site. TimoT 19:35, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

RobS wrote those articles on wikipedia. Your attempt to discredit him is futile! Bohdan 20:27, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
If he did, he used a diffrent name then. I am not trying to discredit anyone, but as you can see from the other examples and from the recent changes log, there seams to be wide boom of copy pasting articles to Conservapedia. And personally, i dont see what is the goal of this competition? If one really wants to make an encyclopedia, i think he should get people to write about their intrests and from subjects they have knowlage. Not just copy/paste or write articles from random stuff just to get points. This kind of articles tend to be shallow and are prone for errors. TimoT 20:43, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
What could I do to persuade you to write articles? Bohdan 20:46, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, this is actually what i meant, im quite new here and i have some hobbyes i might be intrested on writing about, alltho im a foreigner and my english isn't perfect. But if one would some how persuade me to write from other subjects, from stuff im not that intrested on, for example to get points to some competition, i have to admit that my articles wouldn't be near as detailed, accurate or professional, and i think that same goes allso for most of other people. Personally i think that instead of getting old users to make more articles, conservapedia should mayby concentrate on getting new members that would write about stuff they have special knowlage and intrest off. Otherwise im afraid that the quality of articles goes down. More just copy pasted material, or stub articles with no sources. TimoT 21:00, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
The competition, which is of limited duration and only for two selected teams, does not proscribe what one writes about. Personally, I'm writing about things that I choose to write about, although I have included some topics that I'm not all that familiar with, partly in order to learn more about them. Philip J. Rayment 22:55, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

I blocked the above critic TimoT for one day for violating the 90/10 talk rule. Funny how he thinks talk is productive but that contributing to the encyclopedia is not. He seems to think someone should not be able to copy his own entry to other sites (e.g., an entry one made to Wikipedia), or use a government source funded by taxpayers. Onward.--Aschlafly 23:11, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Wow... As im leaving the site, i might just as well speak my mind, as it seams that criticism here gets one banned, even good mannered critisism, of course this is hid behind the veil of the 90/10 rule, or do you really ban all people whos first contribution is to the talk pages instead of an article pages? Or was this done to get the 2 points from banning a user? In either case, this is just bad behavior from the admins, even childish to change the original heading to reflect the facist deed done and to mock the user and belitle his opinnions and will to better this site. I think it's now pretty obvious why all the articles on this site have to be done (copy/pasted) by the few sysop:s. HeikkiL 19:38, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Nice parting shot from someone whose entries were 96% talk (24 out of 25) and one reverted edit. --Ed Poor Talk 19:43, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
I would have done a lot more, if the article just hadn't been locked, and in good consious i can say that those would have been neutral and factual changes, but the debate that was going nowhere just tired me. But sure, belitle what i say, just because it's on talk pages. That way all the bad things go away. HeikkiL 19:49, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
HeikkiL, look at your own spelling. Do yourself a favor and try to learn here before you criticize. You're not going to learn through talk, talk, talk.--Aschlafly 19:58, 11 July 2007 (EDT)~

That was really low. To ban me from my first entry ever to Conservapedia because of a rule that dictates that i have to have 10% non talkpage entryes. Well, now i have one, so to ban me you have to finally admit the real reason and not to hide behind excuses (which one is it, me criticising the site or to get points for the competition? ). But what could i really expect from some one who complains about the spelling to a person who isn't native english speaker, mayby you should have read his talkpage before commenting, i wonder how good your finnish is? I tryed to be as constructive as i could with the critisism i gave, but obviously, that kind of feedback isn't wanted in here. Oh and yes, changing my entry, namely the headline was really something, golfclap from that one. TimoT 00:25, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

TimoT, I wrote those Venona related articles in WP as User:Nobs01 or User:Nobs (Nobs01 aacount was created after my password was stolen). Send me an email from my WP Nobs01 user page, and I'll be happy to forward it back to you to verify it's the same email address I use here. [35] RobS 09:52, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

TimoT, I think the Finnish capitalize pronouns like "I", so you can also. Also, you're clueless in your comments about copying. People can copy their own work. They really can. Moreover, U.S. government work is bought and paid for by us, the taxpayers, and we fully own it. Is the system really that different in Finland?--Aschlafly 09:59, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Copyvio from Wikipedia

I hate to kick up a fuss, but I noticed this and I just couldn't not speak up. At least some Stlphotog's contributions seem to be largely copied from Wikipedia. Compare Ponca City and Wikipedia's article on Ponca City, Oklahoma. Someone named Stlphotog has admittedly edited that article a little, but it's not like he's just transferring his edits from WP over to CP; this version of the WP Ponca City article, from before he ever touched it, still shares large swathes of identical or nearly identical text with Ponca City (look at the "Influence of the Petroleum Industry" section).

The GFDL makes this not a problem as long as you properly credit the original authors and release your derivative work under the GFDL, but Stlphotog doesn't do the former, and cannot practically do the latter on Conservapedia (as it would require all future editors to the page to also release their revisions under the GFDL). Moreover, I've gotten the impression (and indeed, correct me if I'm wrong) that you want Conservapedia not to be a pale copy of Wikipedia.

Right now, the article is a pretty blatant copyright violation. I don't know what you want to do about it, but I figured it'd be important for you to know. AManInBlack 13:07, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Sysops are looking into this. Stlphotog can copy his own work, of course.
GFDL requires more than you say and it is completely unworkable for educational material. The sooner GFDL is abandoned by its defenders and promoters, the better.--Aschlafly 17:25, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
I am curious what these additional burdens that you imply the GFDL places upon educational material are. Could you please elaborate? --Mtur 17:33, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
GFDL imposes 3,300-words worth of requirements. The word "teaching" or "teacher" is not mentioned once. I doubt any teacher has complied with these ridiculous burdens. I teach and it would not surprise me if these requirements were developed to interfere with teaching. They are that bad.--Aschlafly 19:56, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
The requirements can simply be summed up: "If you use material that is licensed under the GFDL, the resulting material is also licensed under the GFDL. If there is a section that is designated invariant, you may not make changes to that section." How does this impose a burden upon teachers? The license itself was designed to maintain the free flow of information and prevent it from being commercialized and locked away. How does the GFDL burden your teaching? --Mtur 20:00, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Mtur, I have substantive edits to do now here. You're not going to distract me with this all evening with this. Read GFDL yourself. As a teacher, I cannot take an entry under the GFDL license, shorten the entry, and hand it out to my students without complying with more requirements than it takes to obtain a drivers' license or board an airplane. Who wrote GDFL, Homeland Security???? It should be like Conservapedia, which promotes broad free reuse of the material.--Aschlafly 20:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
I have read the GFDL, and all of the CC licenses and the GPL and the LGPL and have material released under each. As I understand it, you are able to take a GFDL entry and shorten it and distribute it to your students - you must make certain that you say that it is also a GFDL licensed document (as it is a derivative work) and provide a link to the GFDL. That is the extent of it. As to the writer of the GFDL, I believe it was written by Richard Stallman[36] and his wife (who is a lawyer). Meeting him in the past, I am sure he would be most helpful in answering any questions that you may have about what is and what is not allowed under the GFDL. --Mtur 20:13, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Mtur, you're responding too fast to have read the GFDL, so this will likely be my last response to your questions. Had you read GFDL, then you would see that a modified version for teaching must include:
I have read the GFDL in the past. Professionally, I am a software developer and have worked with software under various public licenses as a hobby. --Mtur 21:08, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:

  • A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
  • B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
  • C. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified Version, as the publisher.
  • D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
  • E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices.
  • F. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving the public permission to use the Modified Version under the terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
  • G. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections and required Cover Texts given in the Document's license notice.
  • H. Include an unaltered copy of this License.
  • I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.
  • J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.
  • K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.
  • L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.
  • M. Delete any section Entitled "Endorsements". Such a section may not be included in the Modified Version.
  • N. Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements" or to conflict in title with any Invariant Section.
  • O. Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers.

If the Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or appendices that qualify as Secondary Sections and contain no material copied from the Document, you may at your option designate some or all of these sections as invariant. To do this, add their titles to the list of Invariant Sections in the Modified Version's license notice. These titles must be distinct from any other section titles. --Aschlafly 20:39, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Technically, Mr. Schlafly is right. The new Creative Commons licenses are better.
The GFDL was drafted before the idea of wiki collaboration was invented. It was really only intended for software documentation, not for online wiki-based encyclopedias!
It would be good if someone would create and publicize a license which does for text what the GPL did for software.
I'd like to see Wikipedia start over with a new license which is simpler and easier to comply with. Users who agree with the new license could simply make a declaration on their user page to that effect. The database could tag any non-compliant versions, so you'd know which is freely copyable and which has the onerous GFDL requirements. --Ed Poor Talk 20:56, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Most of these are particular to the process of writing software documentation (the GFDL's primary use). For this, the invariant sections and cover texts and acknowledgments and dedications and endorsements and copyright notices are used. Outside of that area, I doubt you will find documents that any of these sections in a document. Places you would find these are manuals (hard copy and soft) for various software that the GNU project releases (thats the manuals are also published by the GNU project). Once again, if you have concerns and issues about teachers I would urge you to contact Richard Stallman and see if that can be properly addressed in the GFDL or if there is a misunderstanding on what can and cannot be done with the existing version. --Mtur 21:08, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

The GFDL rules. You hate it, Andy, because of Wikipedia uses it -- as do you, Ed, who also hates Wikipedia.

"It would be good if someone would create and publicize a license which does for text what the GPL did for software." That's what it does. --Pacdude 21:06, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't be silly, I don't hate Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia hates me. But I'm going to do it a big favor next year, all the same. I'm really grateful to Wikipedia for all it's done for me (and the world).
Don't confuse constructive criticism with hatred. --Ed Poor Talk 21:10, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Pacdude wrote, 'It would be good if someone would create and publicize a license which does for text what the GPL did for software.' That's what it does." But no one, and certainly not a teacher, wants a software-type license for educational material! It's silly to even think a software-type license should be adapted to text.

Ed is right, of course. "Wikipedia start over with a new license which is simpler and easier to comply with. Users who agree with the new license could simply make a declaration on their user page to that effect." Otherwise, Wikipedia will remain unusable to teachers and educators.--Aschlafly 21:15, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

(discussion inappropriate for my user talk page is removed. Feel free to repost the material on an appropriate debate page.)--Aschlafly 21:43, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

As a lawyer and educator, have you considered working with the authors of the license to try to make one that is more appropriate for such material? The GPL has gone through several revisions (revision 3 just came out recently). If there is significant concern

making a GFDL v1.3 would be a good thing to do that covers material that is not software documentation (most GFDL material allows it to be covered by the GFDL v1.2 or later - thus if the concerns where addressed in a later version, this issue should go away). One not necessarily need to start over as Ed suggests. That said, I am neither a lawyer nor an educator and the material with which I have worked in the past has been very appropriately licensed under the GFDL and I have no complaints with it. However, it really is up to the people who have issue with it and can talk the legalese necessary to make the next version of the GFDL one that is more acceptable to everyone. --Mtur 22:53, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Mtur, you've got to be kidding. Do you really think I'm going to work to make the Wikipedia liberal smear factory ... more widely used???? That's like asking someone to help a lynch mob get better organized.
When Wikipedia stops smearing innocent people then I'd be happy to help. I don't help bullies.--Aschlafly 23:29, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
I am suggesting a step in makeing the GFDL work better for educators or a step in developing a new license tat would be used for material that isn't designed as software manuals. You have stated you have issues with the GFDL, and yet you take no steps in trying to resolve it. If you complain about how it is cumbersome for educators and then say that you won't work to make it better for educators because it might actually do its job. Could you provide an alternate license instead then? The one that is currently on Conservapedia doesn't protect the information from being commercialized - that is an issue for people who are active in the free software movement. Another concern for these people is that derivative works will remain as free as the original works. The license is not Wikipedia - there are many other projects that use the GFDL (CreationWiki for example - ). Presumably improving the GFDL for educators would allow you to use that material in your handouts too. --Mtur 23:45, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Mtur, show me an interest in stopping the bullying and liberal smears and picking on people by Wikipedia and I'll consider helping it. Otherwise I'm going to spend my time helping people who help rather than hurt others.--Aschlafly 23:52, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
You would be helping the people who are responsible for the operating system that this webserver runs on. You would be helping the people who are responsible for writing the Mediawiki software. You would be helping the people who wrote the SQL server that that runs underneath the mediawiki software. In theory, you would be encouraging people who are concerned about the commercialization of information and the protection of that information from future commercialization to also contribute here (which is currently not protected here). The idea of improving the license and the law to make it better for everyone is not tied to a particular site or a particular political philosophy. It is a way of helping the community that gave you the tools to have this site. There is much more to the FSF community than a particular website.
(Warning: Tangent being followed)
The list of biases that you suggest - many of them are not biases (an observation by an editor for Briticana is not a bias), and many of them are inaccurate, and several of those that are inaccurate are equally valid issues with Conservapedia. Personally, I don't believe that many of those issues that you list that actually are accurate are liberal biases. The issues of defamation that you list are not things that an individual can monitor (I am not capable of researching every single item that goes across Recent changes on Wikipedia - this issue of scale will be an issue for Conservapedia too as it grows). Your issues about criticizing Wikipedia and then they change it requires a person knowledgeable in those areas to point it out. My areas of expertise do not include the fine points of law or historical political (or even current) figures.
(returning from tangent)
That said, is there a way to improve or repair the GFDL so that educators can make better use of material that is covered by it? --Mtur 00:15, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Stlphotog is back at it

Stlphotog hasn't persisted with the copyvio. Compare Lutheran Church with this article. In particular, the second and third paragraphs of Lutheran Church#Early church history are copied from Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, Stlphotog hasn't edited that article on Wikipedia at all. AManInBlack 12:36, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I will be looking into it. Geo.Complain! 15:13, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Fox already took care of it. AManInBlack 15:18, 12 July 2007 (EDT)


How can we access to that list? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 00:18, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Are you looking for Special:Uncategorizedpages? --Mtur 00:23, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
That's the right link. Thanks, Mtur.--Aschlafly 00:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Bias in WP

I don't know if we have these three but;

1) Article on TBN portrays Jan and Paul Crouch as misusing funds.

2) Article on Benny Hinn] portrays him as living extravagantly off of contributions.

3) The No Legal Threats policy appears to violate whistleblower protection laws, as it warns users they will be banned for threatening to initiate legal action.

Sorry if we already have them. Geo.Complain! 01:03, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

We don't have any of those, Geo. Could you spell this out a bit more? I'll include all three tomorrow once I have more details. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 01:05, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Geo - I believe you misunderstand the nature of . It is not saying that you cannot start legal proceedings against a person but rather that Wikipedia is not the proper channel for such and threating people is bad for the community at large. I suspect that similar activities (going to talk pages and threating to sue) would result in a similar response here. I certainly am not a lawyer, but I am curious as to what whistle blower protection laws you are referring to. If there really is a problem and Wikipedia is unaware of it - wouldn't it be better to bring it up with the legal team there rather than trying to say its an instance of bias (and how is that bias?) --Mtur 14:14, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
It also says that if you initiate legal action, you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. A liberal interpretation of this policy could be used to break the law and get away with it.Geo.Complain! 15:07, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Slur (and possibly profanity)

Did you ever get a chance to see the suggestion I made for protected redirects on Ed Poor's talk page? It struck me as a family-friendly way for dealing with these various titles from which no real good can come, while explaining in an encyclopedic and polite way what these words are, for those who genuinely don't know better. Plus, it kills all of the mystery; for a bored kid, just being redirected to slur or profanity kills all the mystery and takes away most of the allure. AManInBlack 10:50, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I tried to find your suggestion, but couldn't. Can you simply state your suggestion here?--Aschlafly 11:06, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
I believe it was to pre-empt vandalism by redirecting all potentially obscene entries or similar to a single article called Slur. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 11:17, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Basically, I'm suggesting protected redirects for non-family-friendly slurs, obscenties, and profanities to an appropriate article about slurs, obscenities and profanities.

User:ObviousVandal comes along and creates some typically useless piece of trash at some slur for a religion, social/ethnic group, or nationality. The admin (or even a user) who spots it simply quietly redirects it to slur, with "redirected to slur" in the edit summary. Likewise, if User:BoredKid makes some garbage at some obscenity, then someone just redirects it to obscenity or profanity (which would be like slur, a simple page describing what obscenity or profanity is) with a simple edit summary stating that they did so. Then, when an admin logs on, they just search the recent changes log for "redirected to" really quick and protects all those redirects.

That way, you're frustrating the vandals (who get neither the attention they crave nor cause the rage they desire), while boring the bored kids even more (who go and bother a site where their trolling actually causes some ruckus). Instead of letting the vandals clog things up with dozens of redirects to deletedpage, instead you're leaving redirects that point to perfectly acceptable, useful, and educational articles. You also help get the bored kid who searches for dirty words on the right track. Additionally, a trusted user could preempt the obvious targets for vandalism in this way before the vandalism occurs.

In my opinion, it's elegant, it cleverly takes advantage of redirects, and it deals with an unfortunate inevitability in the best possible way. AManInBlack 11:28, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Another way to describe your proposal (correct me if I'm wrong) is that instead of (a) simply deleting the page named with a slur) or (b) changing it to a protected redirect to Conservapedia:Deletedpage (as we tend to do currently), you change it to a protected redirect to slur or profanity as applicable.
If that's correct, I'm not sure that it's any better than redirect it to Conservapedia:Deletedpage, but no worse either.
Philip J. Rayment 11:36, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
In addition to having someone trusted (like an admin) preemptively redirecting them and directing readers who genuinely don't know better to a relevant, family friendly, and useful article. AManInBlack 11:43, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Interesting concept. Geo.Complain! 15:10, 12 July 2007 (EDT)


Andy, I've just sent you a rather important email. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 13:52, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

major vandalism

Just thought I would report a strange incident. A user vandalized over 80 pages in three minutes. Bohdan 00:57, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Probably another liberal enemy of conservative principles. He needs to listen to the classic rock song entitled, "I fought the law, and the law won." He needs to listen to it 80 times, in fact.
Your quick work counts towards our team totals, Bohdan! Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 01:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
The people at the other place are using bots. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 04:46, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Question to main index

Hello, i am new here and have some questions to the main index [[37]]:

  • Why there are so few links to other categories (i miss a link i.e. to Category:Computer_science)
  • In exchange, there are links that seem too special to me, like "American Government"

I thought that the index should be an global entry point to all topics. whyBeNormal

Our Index is to our courses, which will expand over time. This is an educational site, first and foremost. You can always use the Search (Find) to look for any topic.--Aschlafly 01:57, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Welcome to Conservapedia! We invite your participation, but also invite you to read our style guidelines, etc, which are posted on your discussion page now. CP rejects the "Globalist" POV of Wikipedia, so many of our procedures will differ substantially. If you have questions, just ask. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:00, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

economics materials on Conservapedia

Thankfully for the students that relied on the Conservapedia economics materials, Timothy Hammersmith was nice enough to correct a couple of Mr. Schlafly's errors. --LuckyJN 10:03, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

LuckyJN, just what do you think was corrected? I have been corrected by homeschooled students, but frankly I doubt you have a clue about economics. Please prove me wrong by saying something intelligent. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:24, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, perhaps you would like to take a look at this link: [21]. As you can see, one of your students had a question about your lecture materials. You presented erroneous information that was corrected by Mr. Hammersmith. As you can see, you admitted you were in error back in April. Again, thankfully Timothy corrected your error before the students were examined. --LuckyJN 19:10, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Seems pretty convenient for you to have ignored this issue, Schlafly. Why can't you give credit where it is due? --AlbertB2003 18:23, 13 July 2007 (EDT)