User talk:Aschlafly/Archive26

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Overnight" edit rights

The "night" time editing lockdown apparently expired at 3pm in my timezone. Any chance of granting me editor status so I don't have to wait half a day before being allowed to edit? :) --Sid 3050 09:22, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Those rights are earned. I've looked at your recent edits and think you have a ways to go before earning them. I look forward to more contributions by you. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:56, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Prosecuting Vandals

User:Stevecarson, IP address (we have all the digits), ISP Fuse Internet Access of Cincinnati Bell Telephone, has been reported for his attempt to vandalize this site last night. Prosecuting vandalism on the internet is a priority of this site and of the Department of Justice. It's unfortunate that public schools don't teach that vandalism is wrong, but the court system does still teach that. He can hire an attorney and try to explain his conduct to a judge. I doubt he'll find much sympathy.--Aschlafly 10:32, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Follow-up: the above instance of vandalism has been reported by phone directly to the FBI office in Cincinnati, which handles internet crime. At the request of the FBI, we then sent the electronic record of the vandalism and the IP address to the officers for their investigation and potential prosecution. Yes, it is wrong and a crime to vandalize websites, and our criminal justice system does not care whether you learned that in school or not.--Aschlafly 10:51, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Honestly, that was probably a waste of both your time and the FBI's. I have a sneaking suspicion that they have bigger things on their minds than chasing down some internet punk. I will be *very* surprised if anything actually comes of this.--Porthos 11:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, Porthos, I suggest you visit a local federal courtroom one morning and watch the line-up of cases brought before the judge, and the prison sentences imposed. I suspect you will also be "very surprised" by what you see. Ignorance and lack of experience lead to surprise about many things.--Aschlafly 12:02, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Andy - the FBI have FAR more important things to be doing. You have a ludicrouly inflated sense of importance (not atypical of most CP'ians) if you genuinely believe that the nation's Federal Bureau of Investigations will be all "Yessir! Right on it!" over a complaint that a minority interest blog has attracted a rash of argumentative postings. Really.
And frankly, I'll be right at the front of the line to complain to my Representatives if the FBI DOES give you the time of day, what with the nation on Orange alert. Have you thought about the fact that now, because of your angry complaint, some FBI official is now going to actually HAVE TO process it? A call or two will have to be made, some thought given to it, a process applied, some forms filled - each act in every way representing a distraction from vital work for your country. If an al-Qaeda plot slips by as a result of your distraction, you will have blood on your hands.
Take a look at yourself - don't you think you've actually now REALLY gone too far? Your feverish delusions have now stooped to wasting the time of the proud servicemen and women of an august force. You should grow up a little and act more responsibly. Wumps 12:45, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
So, you are going to complain about the FBI investigating a crime? I will be the first to complain to my representative about you waisting your representatives time. Bohdan 12:51, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
No matter your bluster Bohdan, you know what I'm talking about. This is not the FBI's website, where vandalism could be national security issue. Nor is it the IBM website, where vandalism could represent a commercial threat. This, in fact, is a wiki, a technology purposely designed to not only allow but encourage members of the public to write. You do not have a legal leg to stand on if you leave all the doors of your house open and complain to the FBI that burglers rearranged your furniture and stole the TV. Even contacting the good folk of the FBI is timewasting. They have terrorists to catch. Wumps 12:59, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Are you aware that the FBI has a separate division that is dedicated only to fighting internet crime? Bohdan 13:01, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
"Wumps", let me guess. You're a liberal, right? You may be hearing this for the first time, then. Vandalism is wrong, and it's a crime. The FBI investigates crimes, the DOJ prosecutes them, and the Bureau of Prisons houses the defendants after they are convicted. No kidding. I know, you didn't learn that in public school. Well, let this site be an education for you and others.--Aschlafly 12:56, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
No, Andy, I'm not a liberal. I'm an American. And yes, Bohdan, I did know there's an internet unit at the FBI. I believe child pornography, identity theft, financial fraud, international and commercial espionage are all crimes pursued by the department. I don't see any crime anywhere about annoying blog postings being a crime. Wumps 13:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Wumps, you're clueless, and I'm confident you are a liberal. We're not fooled by you here. Only a tiny percentage of the FBI and DOJ's efforts go towards catching terrorists. And, by the way, someone who burglarizes an open house is going to jail for just as long as if the house were locked. There are entire divisions of the FBI devoted to internet crime, including vandalizing websites, as Bohdan pointed out.
One more point, Wumps: "burglers" is spelled "burglars".--Aschlafly 13:13, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, I gotta admit, you got me there Andy!  :-) Actually, I'm not clueless, though my spelling could certainly do with some work. But seriously now, please specifiy exactly what crime is being committed- the actual code of law - when a wiki experiences a disagreeable posting? And no, someone who burglarizes an open house is not going to jail, especially since the house has big signs all over the nations highway saying "Open House here! Come write at!"
You don't seem to get it. You might well have a legal leg to stand on if you were not a wiki. But by definition a wiki is an open invitation to write and edit. By your standards, since I'm writing something you're disagreeing with right now, I am currently committing a crime. And I don't think for a moment you believe that's the case. Wumps 13:19, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
A Wiki is a (fairly-) open invitation to write and edit. But not to vandalize, which is the case in question. Philip J. Rayment 07:49, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
I got a better idea. You write an article on Internet crime, starting with website vandalism.
Sometimes the best way to learn about something is when you have to teach it to someone else. --Ed Poor Talk 13:30, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Not to pry, but should someone check first to make sure that this kind of report isn't considered a nuisance and is not itself prosecuted?SumsUp 22:09, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
No offense, but you should probably check to make sure your post here wasn't considered a nuisance that can be prosecuted. Bohdan 22:10, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Excuse me???SumsUp 22:13, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
By prosecuted I mean blockable. Bohdan 22:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
I'll take your non-responsiveness to mean that you did not consider it, and that you are kind of mean to boot.SumsUp 22:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, the FBI will investigate crimes of this nature. They have to do it, it's an obligation. Scorpio 00:01, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

There seems to be a little confusion here... The issue isn't that some moron came along and changed a page maliciously - it is that someone designed a software tool specifically and solely with the aim of targeting and damaging the content of this site and then utilised it to do so. That is not mere vandalism, I think you'll find. Also, the "open house" analogy is ridiculous. If I visit a museum, it has a huge welcome sign on the door; I may even pay a fee, entitling me to enter that museum. I am not excused in law from then smashing an exhibit... File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 08:19, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree and I think it is necessary. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:38, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Something seems to have gone missing. Should I inform the FBI? BritishConservative 08:40, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Is it malicious vandalism? Was it done by a bot designed to vandalize? No to both questions, so I suggest that you go back to writing and/or improving articles. Philip J. Rayment 09:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

I see you have two cases filed with the FBI. Do you have representation? LegalWhizz 15:44, 16 July 2007 (EDT)


I'm a bit put out. I was critical of the user contest, in the hopes that people might take it to heart and better work to help Conservapedia as a whole, instead of simply copy-pasting one-line, unexpandable non-articles, as well as abandon the "this is MINE!" attitude that the contest is fostering. I think these principles are damaging to CP, moreso than a hundred bored kids vandalizing would be.

I spoke out about this on the talk page of the contest, and did my best not to make it about any one person, but instead about the problems of the contest. For my trouble I've been blocked for "lack of etiquette" (I come to later discover by the user whose conduct I used as an example), and the page where I was civilly expressing my objections has been protected.

Where does one civilly express objection to something that doesn't serve the goals of this project? Is there any way I can do so without being bullied by whoever I happen to criticize?

This isn't necessarily a done issue, even if my previous objections are noted, will be taken into account, and need no further discussion. There are other problems, as well: while copying from CIA Worldbook or other PD sources are fine, copying from PBS content is not. Many of the baseball definitions are copied directly from that or or the Baseball Hall of Fame's homepage, none of which are public domain.

Additionally, administrator tools are being wielded like a club to protect inappropriate or irrelevant content just because it's worth an extra point. In National League, I removed a picture that predates the founding of the National League and did not accurately depict a National League game in any era (remember, by the time the NL was founded professional teams were no longer playing in open fields) and a link to a a generic news aggregator, as part of a total revamp. Now, this article that needs much more history (which I plan to add) had been locked, excluding any possibility of improvement.

I don't want this to be about Joaquin, but I think that this contest is promoting destructive attitudes. AManInBlack 11:25, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

If I may put in my two cents on someone else's user page, it's my understanding that the user contest will end within one week. After that, I expect that all one-liners created during the contest period will be opened to general editing.
I'm taking your remarks as constructive criticism! Next contest, we can reform the rules to facilitate collaborative editing. I might even write those rules myself (or with you, collaboratively ;-) because I enjoy working together with other writers.
We need to get away from the one article, one author model of traditional encyclopedias while also avoiding the trap of Wikipedia in which anyone can write anything. Let's find a way to reward cooperation!! --Ed Poor Talk 11:33, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, on Wikipedia, every article is everyone's responsibility. I was under the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Conservapedia was the same way, just for a more refined set of "everyone." Besides the different standards and goals, everyone should fix errors or add content as far as they are able.

To this end, maybe the next contest could be longer, and less emphasis on blocking people or welcoming people or making one line, copy-pasted stubs or things that are essentially robot tasks. Instead, we could focus on improving Conservapedia with content.

Get a largish (say, four or five or six) panel of judges to score submissions. Then, each team (which would be smaller, like three or four people, and more than just two teams) submits 10 or so diffs or sets of diffs, showing their best work during the contest period. Each judge votes on the diffs. This voting could work a lot of ways; I was thinking maybe a "Is it well-referenced? Is it accurate? Is it neutral and factual?" with one point awarded for each yes answer for each diff. You could also have a bonus "Best submission overall" for each judge, for bonus points, or bonus prizes for "best complete article that was a collaboration between teams" (with the points attributed to each team the judges felt contributed to the final), rescuing a really bad article that has been neglected, or writing a great article on a subject Wikipedia doesn't have an article on.

This way, the teams can work together, and indeed are encouraged to do so, and everyone is working to make this the best possible encyclopedia.

I know I'm storming in and throwing ideas at everyone all at once, but I can't help it when I get enthusiastic. AManInBlack 11:49, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

AManInBlack, we welcome suggestions, but we are a meritocracy. That means we spend our time on suggestions in proportion to the quality and volume of the edits by the person making the suggestions.
You have much room for improvement. Your substantive edits are few, and focus on non-encyclopedic matters, and have typos (e.g., "Impovrished", which I just fixed, and Canadian is misspelled on your own page). While you don't yet violate our 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk, you do seem to talk more than edit.
If you could step up the quality of your edits, then I could spend more time on your suggestions. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
What's the 90/10 rule?
My edits aren't perfect. If they were, we wouldn't need a wiki. Instead, what I'm worried about are things that make it hard to fix any mistakes.
I'm worried about tendencies that are subverting what I see as the great things about wikis in general and this wiki in particular, and I was hoping suggestions would be considered on the merits of the suggestion. (Consider the folly of taking bad advice from a friend while rejecting good advice from a stranger.) I've had a fair amount of experience in collaborative writing projects of all sorts, big and small, informative and entertaining, and I'm here to best bring that experience to bear to help make this the best project it can be. The advice is yours to accept or reject as you please; I would just hope that an idea I suggested that were rejected was rejected because it was bad instead of being it was mine. AManInBlack 12:27, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Your post has some cogent thoughts, however one thing it lacks is logic, as you seek to apply, broadly, customs and rules developed by Wikipedia, which we don't even accept as a source here. Since the wiki software has so many built-in permutations, it is logical to accept the fact they anticipated wiki's being run hundreds of different ways. They fact that many will not accept this fact and insist that all wiki's should be run as a mobocracy, is perplexing. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:05, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
    It's actually an adaptation of Everything2's contests, adapted for the fact that E2 writeups are owned by their authors and that E2 doesn't encourage collaboration, plus a bunch of brainstorming on how a contest on CP could work. In fact, the contest I proposed would be a nightmare on Wikipedia, since finding judges would be awful, scoring would be awful, and all that would ever come of it would be that whoever didn't win would complain endlessly. It would only work on a close-knit project where everyone knows and respects each other (one of CP's strengths).
    Wikipedia subscribes to the idea that an article can be polished into shape by a million hands rubbing it. CP subscribes to the idea (and correct me if I'm wrong) that a close-knit group of focused people with a vision can do better than a million passers-by.
    I'm curious, though, what tools do you think Conservapedia uses to prevent a mobocracy? I thought the polite tone, strict punishment of edit wars, and other rules along those lines were what prevented it. I thought the genuine goal of everyone here was to collaborate, both on the article level and the project level, to make the best encyclopedia possible.
    The goal of my idea was to better bring that community together, on a competition that isn't zero-sum, and where helping the other teams and working together to make great articles helps your team. AManInBlack 13:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

"Where does one civilly express objection to something that doesn't serve the goals of this project? Is there any way I can do so without being bullied by whoever I happen to criticize?"

  • Most Admins have email enabled through CP, and some even post their contact info on their User Page.--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
    It isn't a problem with a person, though, it's a systemic thing that needs discussion, not just complaining to one person. AManInBlack 13:27, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Our procedures here are for one of us to take it up with all the other Admins. Hence my suggestion. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:07, 13 July 2007 (EDT)


Dear Andy,

Out of 112,000,000 articles for the search term "Theory of evolution" the Conservapedia article ranks #31. I want to move the article into the top 5. Therefore, I have decided to work on making the footnotes for the Evolution article more user friendly. There are about 180 of them. Would you like to help me? Conservative 11:18, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Rank #31 is excellent for such a common term! Sure, I'd like to help increase its rank even higher. Just give me some guidance here. Others here might help also once you indicate what you would like. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:27, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
Andy, Mr. Rayment and I are working on the first two sections. Please work on this section and tell me when you are done: I am keeping it very simple. I am giving the article title and the author. If the author is famous I am doing something like this: "Carl Wieland. Conservative 11:31, 14 July 2007 (EDT)


Are you able to work on the evolution footnoting now? I am trying to coordinate people's efforts. I did the first two sections so far. Conservative 13:06, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

No, I can't do it right now. I can contribute to the footnoting later tonight. Thanks.--Aschlafly 13:08, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. Conservative 13:09, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

quick note

Dear Andy,

I footnoted the section of evolution that I asked you to do. However, I am leaving today at 5pm. Please start doing footnotes where I left off. I did about 90 footnotes so far. Conservative 15:58, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

How can I tell where you left off? Will it be obvious? Can you just give me a footnote number?--Aschlafly 16:24, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
It will be obvious. However, I will leave you a footnote number too. Conservative 16:28, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

I did the first 90 footnotes

Dear Andy,

I did the first 90 footnotes in the Theory of evolution article. You can start where I left off. Conservative 16:41, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank You

I just got your welcome note. Thank you! I hope to add some insight to this encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisCubsFan (talk)


User:Jayjay, using IP address 24.123.175.xx (we have the full number), is being reported next to the FBI. Cincinnati Bell will easily be able to trace that IP. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:13, 14 July 2007 (EDT)


Is it all right to put all the pages I just rolled back from that crazy Jayjay person under my contest page as pages I edited? Or does that not count? DeborahB. 19:33, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

 ;) It should count - it was anti-vandal work that prevented us from doing other edits :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 19:33, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
Sure, it counts. :-) But I'm going to catch up now!--Aschlafly 20:55, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism and the FBI

Hi, I love your encyclopedia and have gotten much useful information out of it. I was just wondering if you would be so kind as to provide me with the exact law governing vandalism on open edit wiki's such as this one, I'm doing a computer assignment and haven't been able to find much information on it. Since you've been using it to prevent liberal vandalism would you be able to tell me it. Thanks, and keep up the good work Spooster 22:46, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Check out Internet Crime. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:12, 15 July 2007 (EDT)


Why delete the DeletedPage template?--Elamdri 04:19, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

He didn't delete the template, but Conservapedia:Deletedpage. But otherwise, good question. Philip J. Rayment 04:31, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Well I mean, I just checked the Wanted Pages section and that shot up to number one with like 353 broken links.--Elamdri 05:58, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

two matters

Dear Andy,

Two things I wanted to mention:

1. Can you help me with the theory of evolution article footnoting at the present time.

2. A whole bunch of people just created new accounts. They might all be vandals.

Conservative 13:13, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I had to tend to other website duties last night. Just now I sharpened the introduction to the theory of evolution. On the footnotes, perhaps we should hold off for now until we see what the effect of converting the first 90 is? Why do you think the conversion will be significant? Godspeed to your efforts.--Aschlafly 15:28, 15 July 2007 (EDT)


Just wondering...when is the competition between Team 1 and Team 2 ending? Today or tomorrow? And will we continue to do it every week, or is it just a one-time thing? Thanks! DeborahB. 17:36, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Great question. The contest lasts for one week. From the rules: "When the teams have been chosen, they will compete for one week to gain the most points by doing the best work on the site." See Conservapedia:Team contest
This means the contest ends at 11:59 pm Monday night. Lots of time left! In Christ, Aschlafly 17:42, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks! And one more thing...would you mind if I started adding to your Legal Definitions? DeborahB. 17:45, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
That would be great! I actually just finished all of them, and will be working on other topics now. So they are all yours!--Aschlafly 17:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks! DeborahB. 17:50, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Ranking in Google


Our article "Painting Schools" is number 6, ranking in Google among 34,200.

"Painting Masterpieces" number 8 among 23,400.

Joaquin Clausell number 6 among 9,290.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:30, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's fantastic,Joaquín! It's thanks to you! Lord bless you. We've all learned immensely from your contributions.--Aschlafly 21:40, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
Thank you too, that started this wonderful website. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:59, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Copyright of state government materials

I e-mailed Fox about this, but apparently it's a site-wide policy thing and not a specific misunderstanding, so I'll bring it up here.

Most state governments do retain copyright on their published materials, unlike the federal government. Usage rules vary; sometimes all rights are reserved, sometimes non-commercial and/or educational use are allowed freely, sometimes states mirror the federal government. Just to confuse things, sometimes states let individual offices or services or whatever make their own rules. It's a big confusing mess, and isn't as simple as the US gov't's "All works made by a federal employee or soldier as a part of his or her duties are a part of the public domain in the US." (Bear in mind that the US gov't does frequently purchase or license other peoples' work, so some federal sites like are full of non-free stuff.)

The good news is that it should be easy to get permission. CP doesn't have any of the information-wants-to-be-free hangups of Wikipedia, and it's for education and (correct me if I'm wrong) non-commercial, so it should be easy to secure specific permission for the state governor images and the like. It's just a matter of asking for the permission, then marking the images as used with permission instead of incorrectly as public domain.

I know from long, miserable experience on Wikipedia that it's easier to start with good practices than fix bad ones after the fact. AManInBlack 15:09, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

There is no need for a form letter, unless you can cite one instance of some State or the Governor thereof, objecting to, and instituting legal procedures against, an educational site for using the picture of their Chief Executive. Can you do this? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:31, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't think there's a lawsuit risk. I think there is the risk of disservice to people by saying these images are public domain when they are not, and that we do owe copyright holders who are willing to allow their work to be used with permission the respect of asking that permission. It's a trivial matter to send off a request for permission, and it wouldn't at all be unsafe to just send that off at the same time as the upload; I just don't think it's appropriate to either skip the respectful step of asking for permission or mislabel these images as "public domain" when they are not.
There's no reason to do things the wrong way when we can easily do things the right way and still get what we want. I'd be happy to do the footwork, if you need a volunteer (as long as someone can fix the image pages for me). AManInBlack 15:41, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

I cannot see it as "the wrong way" when most state websites I have visited freely grant usage to educational non-commercial sites to use their material, just like the Federal Government does. Can you not point to one instance, other than your personal opinion as to how things "should" be done, that would show us some reason to be concerned about this, creating needless distraction and lots of work for us? I mean just anything at all that would give some reason for your continued posting about this matter? Unlike Wikipedia, which is full of deceit, and made up issues, we try to keep things much simpler here. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:50, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

When they clearly state that, we can just point to that instead of going to the effort of asking for permission. It's just a different from saying that the image is public domain. I'm happy to do all of the work here, to set a good example for the future; could you help me out and let me know which sites you checked to say most state websites do such-and-such?
I'm posting now, when it can easily be dealt with to set a good example for future work, rather than someone down the line sending a sternly-worded legal letter to CP (or worse, to a teacher using CP!), because we took one step too many over the line.
I don't want to see a single image deleted. I'm willing to do all the work insofar as I can. I don't want to cause any disruption; I just want to prevent disruption down the line. AManInBlack 16:01, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

By the way, I misremembered. I didn't e-mail Fox; I e-mailed Crocoite. AManInBlack 16:04, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

This is much ado about nothing. The phrase to describe images from state government should be "fair use" rather than "public domain," though public domain may also be correct in many cases.--Aschlafly 16:17, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Okie doke. AManInBlack 17:18, 16 July 2007 (EDT)


many pages still redirect to the deletedpage page that was just deleted, such as The Evolution of the Human Race. Should the page be created and protected to prevent more vandalism? Bohdan 17:13, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Hey Bohdan - I think it's a problem that's in the middle of being worked on. 15 minutes ago, that page displayed a definition of fornication. :p As did many others. I pointed it out to Hojimachong, he or another Sysop is probably tinkering with it. Not that you shouldn't be concerned. :D Just sayin', I think it's being chewed on. Aziraphale 17:16, 16 July 2007 (EDT) <-chewy...
  • One would hope no work is going on that the other sysops aren't being informed about....--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Restored, Bohdan. Thanks for pointing this out.--Aschlafly 17:34, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

I just got back from the weekend, so I'm not sure what's going on with that page... the Evolution one... was it just created by a vandal or something? DanH 17:38, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Great to have you back, Dan. Any news on your competition to report?
There wasn't any vandalism to the Theory of Evolution. Just lots of revisions to it.--Aschlafly 17:59, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Dan went off to class, Andy...but HE WON HIS DIVISION CHAMPIONSHIP at the Chess tournament! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:14, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

WOW!!! THAT'S GREAT!!! HE'S SO MODEST ABOUT IT, TOO. If you can find the details, then let's put this on the front page.--Aschlafly 18:17, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Ah, thanks! Eventually, a link of the tournament report plus probably a picture of me holding my plaque will be on the Kansas Chess Association website, but the webmaster there is notoriously slow to update it, so it may be a little bit. DanH 22:56, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Good news and more good news - uncited template

Dear Andy,

Out of the 16 articles that the uncited template was put on, 9 of the articles have been cleaned up. So the template cleaned up over half the uncited articles. I should mention that if possible the offending parties were largely contacted unless there were a lot of contributors. So I think that is good news in that uncited template seems to be helping as far as creating a better online encyclopedia here. Secondly, I just remembered that the more links a internet article has the higher the search engine rank. That is why our very well cited evolution article is ranked so relatively high in a very crowded field (ranked #34 out of 112 million articles). So I think the new template is increasing quality and has the potential to create more search engine hits. Here is an example of a current article with the uncited template: Any comments? Conservative 19:43, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean by "uncited template"? Does that refer to the stub in Confucius about a lack of footnotes? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:49, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
By "uncited template" I am referring to the "grey sign" which mentions the lack of footnotes as seen in the Confucius article. Do you see it, and would you agree that 9 out of 16 articles cleaned up shows it serves a useful purpose - especially since outside links/footnotes within articles creates higher search engine rankings? By the way, once the articles are improved people remove the template. Also, the template creates the article to be put in the "Category tag" of uncited articles so further cleanup on other articles can be done.Conservative 20:46, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Sounds good. Well done!--Aschlafly 20:51, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

I suspect that contacting "the offending parties" might have been a bigger factor than simply putting the template on. How about another test of putting the template on but not contacting any of "the offending parties" and see how it goes. I hope it works, but I suspect that it won't work as well. Philip J. Rayment 22:52, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

I won't work. And the template being on puts friendly pressure to footnote the article after the reminder has been issued. Conservative 14:43, 18 July 2007 (EDT)