User talk:Aschlafly/Archive3

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Under what license do I have rights to copy content from this wiki?

Our license is broader and simpler than the 3,200-word Wikipedia license. We grant a revocable license to reuse and copy without any restrictions, and with or without attribution. The only contemplated basis for revocation would be in self-defense, such as preventing harm to an editor or preventing application of a copyright against Conservapedia for material copied from it.--Aschlafly 19:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
If Conservapedia's license isn't compatible with the GFDL (eg. Conservapedia's license doesn't require attribution, the license can be revoked), then from a legal standpoint, material can't be copied over from Wikipedia to here. So, at the very least, something like [1] (which is an exact copy-n-paste from wikipedia) should mention that it's licensed under the GFDL, or it should be removed as a copyvio. --Interiot 13:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
We don't allow copying from Wikipedia, primarily because of its content rather than its copyright policy. That said, it's copyright policy is too burdensome is not really the free-use copyright that people claim. But what do you think is a copy-n-paste from Wikipedia here? Vandals who do that are blocked as soon as we recognize it. I tried your link and could not find anything. Please be more specific so that any copying from Wikipedia that remains can be removed, and the person who did it will be warned or blocked.--Aschlafly 14:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
This version (you have to click "edit" to see the larger amount of wikitext that was copied) is a direct copy of this (again, you have to click "view source"). I think it would be less of an issue if that page made it clear that specific content was licensed as GFDL rather than the default license you outlined above. --Interiot 18:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, your complaint is quite tendentious as it complains about hidden and straightforward source code rather than expressive text, and I couldn't find any instance of this template actually being used here. But we don't want the Wikipedia stuff anyway, and I certainly don't want its burdensome licensing requirements. We are far more generous in allowing people to copy our material than Wikipedia apparently is. Nevertheless, I've warned the user who posted this unused template (he's not someone I know), and I'll delete the template soon.--Aschlafly 19:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)


What is a sysop? Is it like an editor? Can I be one?--CWilson 19:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

A sysop/administration is a user who has the abilities to block and delete articles.


Thank You

I have reverted your article on Wikipedia back to how you left it. Perhaps as it was a days work between editors you are correct. It should be viewed by a senior editor. Sorry I can feel your repression. B

Thank you. RightWolf2 19:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Desysop of Conservative

Andy, I've been watching Conservative's edits of Theory of evolution and Young Earth Creationism, and they're truly horrid. Where they're not poorly structured, they're biased, portraying evolution in a massively biased perspective and warping other scientific theories in the process. I think you should either un-protect those articles, remove Conservative's sysop powers, or both. His term as a sysop, while marked by many contributions, has led to a degredation of the quality of those articles.--AmesG 19:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I've never been on the Wikipedia article page...--AmesG 19:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Makes more sense when I put it in the right place, it was meant for Rightwolf2 can someone apart from me look at this page. It does not seem appropriate.

Bible vandal

I few minutes ago we had our "redirecting-the-page" vandal, who loves changing the layout for an expletive, and daring us to prosecute. Can you get his IP? Karajou 20:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

da vinci code versus The Da Vinci Code

Why do we have two identicle articles on this? It is a waste of space to have two; it would be better to have da vinci code redirect to The Da Vinci Code. I am doing so now; I just figured I would tell you incase I got reverted for vandalism. GofG ||| Talk 21:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Re: 18 USC § 1030 on Main Page talk page

Can I ask why the discussion of 18 USC § 1030 was deleted from the talk page of the main page without comment? It seems to me to be a valid point of concern, the the main page of this site is misrepresenting the law, it should be changed, if it is correctly represented why not address the apparently legitimate concerns of myself and others?--Reginod 21:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The discussion is inappropriate there. There is a talk page for 18 USC § 1030. The law is not misrepresented. In fact, it's provided verbatim at the link.--Aschlafly 21:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure I see why it is inappropriate on the main page since the concern is not how the text of the law is presented, but the conclusions that are drawn from it on the main page. The discussion was (or at least the part I posted was) about the content of the main page. My concern is not that the text is wrong, my concern is that the threat that people who vandalize this site be charged under that section of the US code is an empty threat (or a misstatement of the law). --Reginod 11:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm with Reginod. It seems that the statute would prevent any unauthorized post on the site. However, because Conservapedia authorizes anyone who hasn't yet been banned to post material to the site, that specific statute presents a hollow threat. --Huey gunna getcha 17:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

"Evolution" article - the evolutionists are trying to make this a liberal POV site

There was an attempt to create a pro-evolution article under a significant heading/title. I deleted the article. The article was under the title Evolution. A lot of people would first go to such a title as Evolution. I know you do not favor having a pro-evolutionary view article. If you could intervene in this matter it would be greatly appreciated. Conservative 21:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I'm sorry, but if you saw something wrong with the article I wrote, perhaps you should have edited it and not deleted it. I didn't know you'd censor factual statements, though, as all of those in that article were. It was a carefully worded, neutral article.
Also, I wouldn't need to create a neutral article if you clean up your Theory of evolution article. I'm compiling my suggestions as you recommended; it'll take a while, though.--AmesG 22:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


Nevermind, you fixed it. ColinR 22:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It wasn't a pro-evolution article. It was neutral, which the Theory of evolution article is NOT.--AmesG 22:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


I'm frequently running into resistance when presenting basic Christian beliefs that people may find uncomfortable or politically incorrect. One person, who I believe is an honest editor, even held up a Wikipedia article that dealt with some social issues as exemplary. In another case, I was told that I couldn't present a claim as a simple fact because some texts--such the Qu'ran--disagree! It's leaving me a little confused as to what point of view Conservapedia is to be coming from. What happened to being Pro-Christian and Pro-American? SavedByGrace 22:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Persistence, my friend. The resistance makes you and your arguments stronger in the end. True conservatives don't expect it to be easy. Try to persuade, and take any repeated disputes to a SYSOP, such as User:TimSvendsen. Thanks.
So the Bible can be cited as literal fact, no corroborating evidence required, for things like the age of the Earth?--AmesG 22:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Such citation adds information. The reader can then decide whether to accept it or not. Removing the citation leaves the reader completely in the dark, and less well informed. I wouldn't ever delete Biblical references, given its authoritative role in life and world history.--Aschlafly 22:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Is this sentence okay in an article "Homo Sapiens"? "Everyone knows that man was created on the sixth day of the creation week, by God." cite-Bible. No corroborating source. Shouldn't that be, "Christians believe..." etc? Or are you no longer striving for an encyclopedic tone?--AmesG 22:49, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
In my understanding, Bilical references can be superceded by highly notable sources, but verses are definitely better than nothing. --Hojimachongtalk 22:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
What sources? Richard Dawkins? The National Academy of Sciences? I think you may have stumbled onto the wrong encyclopedia. As for AmegG's example, if I were to handle that issue, I'd say the "Everyone knows that" part should be dropped, and the rest remain in place with the proper Authoritative citation. SavedByGrace 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Please note that the Bible has never successfully been disproved. Some would argue that the Bible is full of contradictions, but many arguments have been discarded. The rest of the arguments fail to disprove the Bible as they take verses out of context. --<<-David R->> 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to belabor the point, but has it been proven? No. So shouldn't the goal here be to present both views fairly and let the readers decide? Otherwise, all you are doing is flipping the Wikipedia bias you talk about on its head and preserve your own bias.--Dave3172 22:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Dave's got it. --AmesG 23:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah, but there's a key flaw in your comparison, isn't there? We disclose our point-of-view, while Wikipedia denies it. We're not trying to fool anyone. We give the reader the information, and we let the reader decide. Wikipedia, while pretending to be neutral, is actually far more liberal than the American public and its bias results in censorship of vast amounts of information that readers would like to evaluate for themselves, such as biblical authorities.--Aschlafly 23:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Andrew, I'm not arguing against your viewpoint. What I am saying is that, as you say, "we let the reader decide." And that means ensuring that both views are presented fairly. Such as giving evolution more than a single sentence in the "Kangaroo" article or opening the "Theory of Evolution" article to the general public. --Dave3172 23:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"we let the reader decide" probably means, we present the facts and let the reader decided whether to accept those facts or not. --<<-David R->> 23:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

If that's the case, then you DO NOT actually disclose your bias. You claim to be objective on the main page and the Conservapedia commandments. You claim to be a better NON-BIASED Wikipedia, not the Conservative answer to Wikipedia. You should probably call NPR, et al, and change the cover page and let them know that you will not anymore be making pretensions of objectivity.--AmesG 23:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Coincidently, I cannot find those claims anywhere. What main page are you at? --<<-David R->> 23:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservapedia Commandments 2 & 6,and all the spin is that this is supposed to be a non-liberal version of Wikipedia.--AmesG 23:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Not everyone shares the currently fashionable view that all bias is subjective. Someone can have beliefs about the world and arrive at them objectively. SavedByGrace 23:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Besides, 2 and 6 refer to citing sources and making opinionated statements. Neither make any claim that Conservapedia does not support a "bias". As for the spin, where? And where did you find the claim on the main page? --<<-David R->> 23:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

2&6 convey a commitment to objectivity.--AmesG 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Look, I thought that what you were trying to create here was a real place for objectivity and truth. But, if you were trying to create a haven for Christian viewpoints to go unchallenged, to hide them from the "searching light of criticism," commentary, or just other people's opinions, then this is not the place for me. If you were trying to create such a haven, to hide fundamentalist Christian dogma from anyone who could challenge them, I have to say, I think it's pretty sad, an indication of the weakness of your own viewpoints, and insult to your own beliefs. Please tell me if I'm wrong. --AmesG 23:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
"We disclose our point-of-view, while Wikipedia denies it" To be fair... we really don't. All the front page says about our point of view is that we give full credit to America and full credit to Christianity. Oh, and we're called "Conservapedia." What exactly is our POV and where do we state it? Myk 15:06, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle here... where would be an appropriate place to ask this question? Myk 22:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

stub templates usurpation

I propose that {{stub2}} and {{stub}} switch places; meaning, placing {{stub}} on a page would produce what is now on the {{stub2}} page, and vice-versa. It seems like the short italicized text at the bottom is much better than a big ugly template at the top. Comments? --Hojimachongtalk 00:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I concur. ColinR 00:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm pretty much against it, just like I'm against the current stub2 template. The entire point is to attract attention. The stub2 template tries to blend in, drawing little attention to itself while also increasing the perceived length of the article. Look at the front page. The box with the legal threats is big and ugly, too. Should we move the warning to the bottom of the page and make it blend in better? I don't think so. --Sid 3050 08:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Prev discussion & 18 USC 1470

I'm pretty sure that the way you're trying to apply 18 USC 1470 would be unconstitutional as applied. See Reno v ACLU 521 U.S. 844. I could be reading it wrong, though, but the holding there seems to say that criminalizing the placing obscene materials in a way that is accessible to minors is per se unconstitutional.--AmesG 00:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and I look forward to an answer to where your site falls per my comment above.

Then why does every have a minor warning and specifically prohibit minors?Geo. 01:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
... - SavedByGrace 01:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Let's just see how the "prosecutions" go ;-). You have your first test case.--AmesG 11:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

The Reno case reaffirmed the constitutionality of federal obscenity laws. "Transmitting obscenity ..., whether via the Internet or other means, is already illegal under federal law for both adults and juveniles. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1464-1465 (criminalizing obscenity)" Reno, n.44. Reno merely blocked a new law by Congress concerning a new definition of indecency. Unsolicited obscenity remains illegal. Notice how you never receive obscenity in the mail, for example. Obscenity cases are prosecuted regularly concerning the internet now, and convictions are very easy to obtain.

Here's another obscenity law that also applies to protect wiki-based sites: 18 USCS § 1462.--Aschlafly 18:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)


I just cleaned up some obscenity by User:Urdicks. I delted User:Mtur to get rid of it but you can still see it in deleted edits. I think his post meets the definition of unlawful obscenity and COPPA. Recommend prosecution. Geo. 01:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Are you going to forward this for prosecution? Geo. 00:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
The user Ur____ posted his edits from within the federal jurisdiction of the District of Maryland, based in Baltimore. His IP address is . His ISP is Verizon Internet Services. I have not yet reviewed all his recorded edits here for obscenity.--Aschlafly 22:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Please unblock

My sysop account Niandra has been blocked due to autoblock of alias account. I created a different account Niandratest to test the blocking feature. Please unblock me (username: Niandra)

Thanks Niandra2 01:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, problem solved niandra 02:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Point of deep concern

User:Conservative is now deleting referenced material which contradicts Young Earth Creationism from the Dinosaur article, under the guise of "preventing vandalism". This user is turning conservapedia into a laughing stock. Please de-sysop him, before we lose all credibility. Nematocyte 12:21, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Conservative has now archived all discussion on the Evolution talk page under the guise of "Browser issues", and protected his talk page after I enquired about his scientific qualifications. Nematocyte 12:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
If I am not mistaken, I was told you wanted the dino article cleaned up. I quickly removed a lot of material given that I am leaving shortly. I also had evolutionists pestering me at my user page at the time. Conservative 12:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I asked you twice what your scientific qualifications were, and an "evolutionist" is technically someone who is a specialist in the field of evolution. I am but a humble zoologist. Nematocyte 12:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
You removed a lot of sourced material that should have stayed. What legitimate reason did you have for removing it?--Dave3172 12:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
User:Conservative has now atempted to blank and protect talk pages related to "The theory of evolution". I ask that this be taken into consideration as well. Nematocyte 13:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I had some time to look at my deletions. Evolutionists were parading conjecture/theory as fact. The "KT event" was called a fact. It isn't a fact. [3] I realize that the people from the National Academy of Sciences (your source) call this dino conjecture a fact but that is not surprising given that 93% of the scientists who were members of the United States National Academy of Sciences do not believe there is a God.[4] It is well known that the most vociferous defenders of the evolutionary position are atheists and if you don't believe me ask Richard Dawkins. Conservative 14:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
There he goes again with his acerbic tone.  :) I say we block him for his aforementioned harrassment. Conservative 14:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Good idea. These liberal science types cause nothing but trouble.
JC 15:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Apologies. I wouldn't need to be acerbic if you would ever voluntarily meet for a debate, but you won't. When will you answer my question?--AmesG 15:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservative and JC, are you both 12 years old? Or do you just enjoy acting like it? I would suggest looking very closely at the arguments being put against you Conservative and then answer them properly with a good argument, rather than either diverting the argument to an unrelated issue or saying something irrelevant. The concerns raised here are relevant and won't go away because they were raised by "liberal scientist types" who "cause nothing but trouble".MatteeNeutra 15:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I would like to say that one of the best professor I've ever had was one of the most Christian people I've ever met. Even so, he firmly believed in the validity of evolution as a scientist. My point being that evolution and Christianity can coexist peacefully, read what AmesG said below. ColinR 15:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Colin, and Mattee. That's my point exactly. I want Conservative to recognize that you don't have to lie to yourself or use bad science to try to disprove good science (evolution) to be a Christian. You can know evolution is true and know that God is still great and powerful. The two aren't exclusive, and since they're not exclusive, they can drop all the terrible arguments against evolution. Suggesting otherwise is not only self-deluding and doublethink in the extreme, but risks damaging the children that access this site by forcing on them your narrow-minded opinion that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive. If you do that, you end up with Conservative on one end and Richard Dawkins (equally nutty, though a good scientist) on the other. Evolution is not out to hurt religion!--AmesG 15:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
FWIW: I don't think that scientific credentials should have a bearing on the discussion, so long as the "facts" are supported by verifiable outside sources. --Crackertalk 17:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Question regarding evolutionist pestering and blocking

An evolutionist was playing games with me. He twice put the same inane message on my user page. I don't believe he was looking for serious discussion. I think I should be able to block a user temporarily for harrassing behavior. What do you think?

I also think the talk page for theory of evolution has recently turned into attack Conservative (me) rather than a serious discussion of the article. If a user continues to attack me rather than focus on the actual article in the talk page I also think a warning should be given regarding blocking. Talk pages are for talking about the article plain and simple.

I will admit to deleting some evolutionists leaning sourced material for the dinosaur article as I was in hurry to get to an appointment (while being harrassed by evolutionists) and I was told if I am not mistaken that you wanted the article cleaned up. I am leaving now for my appointment. Conservative 13:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I asked two one sentence questions which I considered very important (the details of his scientific qualifications). If that is considered harrassment, how are we meant to utilise the talk pages? Nematocyte 13:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
It seems as if AmesG had a penchant to be repetitive on my talk page as well. I also discussed the irrelevance of that question on the talk page for the article. If you want to be a evolutionist bullyboy by engaging in these juvenile tactics I suggest you go to Wikipedia. Conservative 13:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
All I wanted to know was what your scientific qualifications were. Nematocyte 13:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's the "inane" question I asked: Conservative, I want to ask a serious question that I hope you take a long time to think about. Let's assume, arguendo, that evolution is fact, and "Genesis" is not meant to be read literally, but as an allegory. It's no longer "six twenty-four hour days," but "six ages." How does that change your religion? It certainly makes life more complex, and makes faith more complex. But does that weaken your faith, or strengthen your faith by showing you the the ability of God to hide deeper truths in plain view? Suppose man did evolve from lesser forms of life. God did not create Adam and Eve as they were. Does that end God's role in man's life? Isn't God still responsible (in your view) for making us human, giving us souls, raising us above our base anatomy as provided by nature? Isn't God still great because of that?

The irreducible minimum is this: do you think religion should change over time? Should a set of beliefs change with the believers, or should it ossify a culture, insulating it from all other outside change, and holding all values constant, for all time? Should we return to Job's treatment of pain and suffering, and if we're ever sick, should we just take it, as Job did, or should we try to cure ourselves with modern medicines? Isn't it possible that God sent us medicine through Louis Pasteur, or whoever you choose, as an aid to us?

And finally, is science actually destroying God, or just revealing more of His true nature? And does he suffer from that? Think long and hard before you answer.--AmesG 13:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

To clarify, I am asking for serious discussion. Apparently, I may be the only one.--AmesG 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
AmesG and Aschlafly, My appointment was cancelled. I stated in the Theory of evolution/talk page that I didn't exactly appreciate AmesG's acerbic tone. You then posted your series of 7 questions many of which had nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution article. I erased them. You then insisted that I answer them by putting them once again on my talk page. I have no interest in being cross examined about matters unrelated to the article. I see no reason to be pestered by an evolutionist like I was at Wikipedia. In short, I will not put up with your evolutionist bully boy tactics that are so common at Wikipedia. Conservative 14:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I'm not bullying you. I just want you to confront this deep question before you push anymore of your viewpoint down our throats, with your assertive blocking tactics to boot.--AmesG 14:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Ames, I am glad you said I was assertive and not aggressive. Thanks for the compliment.Conservative 14:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
You should answer the question--AmesG 15:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I was being bullied and harassed. I blocked the offender for a week

I blocked AmesG for harrassment. The repeated unwanted posts to my user page regarding the same inane cross examination of irrelevant points was enough. Three strikes and your out. I am not going to put up with it. He was warned and persisted. I think he wanted me to ban him in hopes it would be overturned and make me look bad. Conservative 16:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

This looks very bad. At minimum, an admin should never a block a user whom he is in a dispute with but should have an independent third party admin look at it. AmesG has many produtive edits, and I strongly urge this block to be overturned. JoshuaZ 16:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree with JoshuaZ. ColinR 16:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
JoshuaZ, given your article at Wikipedia on Conservapedia, I am not at all concerned that you think this looks bad. Conservative 16:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Given that multiple admins feel that the block was in error, I, as an aforementioned third party, undid it pending a judgment from Aschlafly. MountainDew 16:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Could you post a link to the warning you gave him, please? It's rather hard to judge without it. That aside, though, admin and contributor capacities should be kept separate at all times. Tsumetai 17:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I told him more than once that he was harrassing me. I did it at this page. That is why his last post to me was titled, " I hate to bother you, but....". The truth is that he did not hate to bother me. Conservative 18:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
From what I can gather, you told him that he was an "evolutionist bully boy." This is more of a personal attack based on beliefs than a warning. GofG ||| Talk 18:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Folks, I see that the block has been lifted and that seems right in this case. That said, I am also on the verge of blocking pro-evolutionists who constantly, repetitively, and incessantly post commentary on my own talk page. This soaks up my time that could be better spent on editing and posting new entries on other topics. Pro-evolutionists completely control Wikipedia. Isn't that enough?
We don't generally block for ideological reasons. But if the pollution of one's talk page with never-ending rants rises to an intolerable level, then temporary blocking is appropriate. Thanks.
Now I was unable to post this message because someone else is ranting about another issue that should be addressed on that talk page about that topic. Misuse of one's talk page is a legitimate reason to block. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Evolution page

When is the evolution page going to be openned up? I have an interest in the topic and would like an opportunity to contribute. As things stand the page is highly unsatisfactory as you are very well aware. I should add, while I'm at it, that the macroevolution page (also locked) is an embarrassment. --Horace 18:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and I see dinosaur has now been locked also. What is going on here? --Horace 19:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Your request has a non-cooperative tone. The page is not "highly unsatisfactory as you are very well aware." My confidence about the validity of your proposed edits is undermined by your false statement of what I am "very well aware." I suggest you make proposed edits on the corresponding talk page, whiling adhering to our rules of verifiability. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:35, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
My tone arises out of my frustration. I have raised the issue before. I say that you are well aware because the matter has been raised by myself and others on a number of occasions. The page is clearly unsatisfactory. It is an anti-evolution page. Rather than adding to the authority of this site, it diminishes it. --Horace 19:41, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
How often have you complained to Wikipedia about its page being pro-evolution? If the answer is zero, then you might balance your complaints first.--Aschlafly 20:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
What has Wikipedia got to do with it? I don't contribute to Wikipedia. I conribute to Conservapedia. --Horace 22:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Horace, please post your further comments about Evolution (or any other topic) on the talk page for that content. I'm not going to respond further here, and don't clutter my talk page with your complaints about that evolution here. Thank you.--Aschlafly 22:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Since User:Conservative appears to be ignoring all comments relating to his scientific credentials, which of the books be quotes he has actually read, criticism of the appropriatness of producing an article made up in bulk of out of context quotes, the whole-sale removal of referenced material which contradicts his religious views (on the dinosaur article as well), I have to ask what the use of the talk page is? Nematocyte 08:06, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion Aschlafly. I have posted on the talk page under the heading "Rallying point". I am sure that those who have posted there would be interested in your comments also. --Horace 16:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Hello? --Horace 18:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Hello? --Horace 18:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Hello? --Horace 23:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

Citations from Wikipedia....

Since the Conservapedia is billed as an alternative to Wikipedia, which is deemed by the Founders as culturally, religiously and politically biased, why in God's name are editors using information from that source to substantiate their information/edits here?

Many of us start from the premise Wikipedia is a suspect source. Please find alternative source information, otherwise there isn't really a point to this "alternative" is there? I am seeing editing here that uses citations from the same author's work at Wikipedia, or quoting material not properly sourced on Wikipedia. That simply isn't an acceptable practice, and is intellectually dishonest.

--TK 19:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right. Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source or authority. Please edit the offending pages and alert the contributors. The mistakes could have been innocent, of course.--Aschlafly 19:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
  • LOL. Yes, of course, innocent.... Check the pages on Ronald Reagan, Thatcher, etc. As fast as I can edit them back, they are changed by, I guess, Scottish Nationalists, and those intent on thinking Margaret Thatcher was some loony alcholic, wrecklessly ruining her nation. I haven't even looked at what they might have done to George Bush..... --TK 19:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
So edit them, please. That's what wiki software is for. If you encounter a locked page, which I doubt for Margaret Thatcher, then the talk page is the appropriate place for your comments. Claims of alcoholism appear like gossip to me, by the way, which would be against our rules--Aschlafly 20:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
  • As soon as it is edited another user, or in the case of Thatcher, a Sysop edits it back to one paragraph, not posting a note explaining. Would you consider granting me sysop status, at least long enough to complete the Reagan and Thatcher articles, and then judge for yourself if I deserve it? I emailed you about this from within this system, are you still not getting them? --TK 19:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)


how come you keep erasing the comments?--Devout evolutionist 20:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

They are on the appropriate talk page. Check your talk for further explanation. Not much further, but still. --<<-David R->> 20:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

*waves a hand*

could you or one of the other SYSOPs go smack whoever made the last edit on Women in the Military? thanks. Navy Nuke 20:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

thank you

Thanks for your comment on my contribution on insemination, but I really thought that it was a legitimate biology post, and not at all naughty or sexual. I really don't want my kids going somewhere inappropriate for this info, and I thought that this was a place that could safely and morally deliver useful info. If you have suggestions on how we can create a compliant post with similar info, id love to work with you on it. Thanks much.

A strong recommendation

As someone who has written for many different wikis, watching the "recent changes" traffic here seems to tell me something: there's a real need for some kind of vetting of people before they are given accounts. This is not hard to do -- you can ask for a valid e-mail, you can ask for credentials -- and I think it will be well worth it. Here's why:

1) Easily 60% of sysops' time is spent reverting vandalism 2) With the current system, nothing prevents anyone from opening a new account 30 seconds after their old one was permanently blocked 3) There are plenty of people with extra time on their hands who can force Conservapedia to spend all its time dealing with them, and it sabotages the overall project. 4) If you want to control high-profile articles (or prevent the creation of new embarassing ones), this is much more time-efficient

That's just my thought -- but I thought it worth posting.

Boethius 20:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I strongly agree - even to cut off registration completely for a short while to somewhat clear up all the controversy with existing articles, users and general rules. niandra 17:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Racism warning

I just blocked User:Mongo for vandalism. He added multiple pictures of Hitler with the text "The Jews did 9/11" to several pages. I think that prosecution should be looked into. Geo. 02:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I blocked an older account of his(I can't remember the name) but he had put the same thing into another article. I agree that prosecution should be looked into.NSmyth 02:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Just blocked another. Used the name Therightway. Nsmyth 02:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Ronald Reagan

This thing keeps being the victim of a war, of some sort, and being re-written constantly, in a ideological tug-of-war.

Per your suggestion, I prepared a re-write, but found one of your sysops had changed it all around again, now several other users have been adding ideological edits, removing whole paragraphs, adding others.

Perhaps it should be locked down? Again, as someone who was working with the major figures in DC at that time, I would volunteer to undertake a comprehensive edit of it, but it seems to be a fixation with some, to keep changing the content and tone to reflect their particular political objective. --TK 03:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Margaret Thatcher

Can I request that if you have a moment, you check the debate on talk:Margaret Thatcher. My edits to this page are being repeatedly deleted by user:TK and I am not clear as to why. In light of his/her other edits I don't believe s/he is a vandal, but this (what seems to me) overzealous reverting is very frustrating.Tracy C Copeland 06:58, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

use article talk pages

You continually say that people should use each article's talk page. This would be fine but there are now suggestions on talk:Abortion that are over 4 days old while the Abortion page remains protected but unedited. --Scott 08:07, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Did you by any chance move the entire subject "Six times more liberal than the American public" to the appropriate talk page, or did it simply disappear. Furthermore, the remarks in it did belong here, because you didn't respond to any of the comments made on the appropriate talk page; other than saying something to the effect that we should let it be. The reluctance of yours to engage in the discussion on the appropiate page was the subject, and that discussion belongs here. Both John and I were discussing you reluctance, indeed a personal issue, and it can be discussed on the users talk page. Just like you decided to take this discussion to mine. --Order 17 March, 12:12 (AEST)

Job Queue and other things

I noticed on special pages:statistics that we have a thing called the "job queue" but we don't have any pages listed in it. I don't know how to use it, either. I've been thinking this is a good idea, since there are many articles I've tagged as stubs that need major rewrites or citations, but I feel like I'm probably acting to no avail. A job queue could help with this. Now, I mostly just go to special:dead end pages and add links, but that's a pretty big task for one person. I also think we should encourage everyone (particularly admins) to take advantage of the "Mark article as patrolled" feature--it makes the red exclamation mark disappear on the "Recent Changes" page. This way, we could be more efficient with admins' time, as it's a bit wasteful to triple-check every edit for vandalism. Once more editors get on here, the speed at which new changes are coming in may make this necessary. Also, I think we should encourage admins to put pages on their watchlist, especially ones that may be subject to repeated vandalism. The pages on your watchlist appear in bold in Recent Changes and you can click "my watchlist" at the top right to view all edits to those pages since your last login. --John 13:02, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. niandra 13:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I Concur. --Hojimachongtalk 14:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm no expert with wikis, but the help page doesn't read like it's meant as a To-Do list (emphasis mine):
Currently there is one application for the job queue: updating the links tables when a template changes.

The problem comes when you edit the template to use a different category. The template might be used on thousands of articles, updating the links for all of those articles would be much too slow to perform during the web request to save the article. So previous versions of MediaWiki didn't bother. The category membership wouldn't change, and it was necessary to do a "null edit" (that is, click save without making any changes), for each of the articles using the template.

MediaWiki 1.6 adds a job to the job queue for each article using the template. Each job is a command to read an article, expand any templates, and update the link table accordingly. So null edits are no longer necessary, although it may take a while for big operations to complete.
The suggestion in general is a good one (structured clean-up and improvement), but the actual Job Queue doesn't seem to factor in there. --Sid 3050 14:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)


Ok, Im a very patient person, but what is "sex talk"?!?!? I mean, the biology of reproduction when presented as I did it, respectfully and morally, is useful, important, and APOLITICAL. I would not venture to insert my politics anywhere on this site. My politics, when I either agree or disagree with something here, are irrelevant. I am only interested in diseminating (dont censor that word please) useful information in a respectful way.

Are you a physician? A PhD credentialed in this field? If so, then state your credentials. If not, then forget about it here.--Aschlafly 14:48, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I am a medical doctor, born, trained, and practicing in the US, a clinical assistant professor of medicine at a major university. If you wish to know more, I can hunt down my Curriculum Vitae for you. I have no political affiliations, not that it would be anyone's business unless I am editing political articles. I am not registered or donating to any PACs or political parties. I treat sexually transmitted diseases daily, in patients of all faiths, but also in many born-again christians, as no one is inherently immune. I treat all my patients with respect and give them the knowledge to take care of themselves properly. I would be happy to help edit any articles on medicine or sexuality (if presented truthfully and respectfully). I am not interested in vandalism, trolling, or posting opinions anonymously. Any questions? Palmd001 15:00, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, your comments about your background are a surprise. Where did you do your residency, and in which field? Feel free to improve our entry on the HPV vaccine, which you should know all about. Additional scientific entries on the damage caused by sexually transmitted diseases would be welcome. Let's see how that goes.

A surprise? I think many of the contributors here are well-educated. I trained in Internal Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. Northwestern is non-sectarian, but founded as a Methodist college. It's reputation is unimpeachable. I would be happy to look over the HPV Vaccine article. This is a very interesting topic. I do not have a strong opinion yet as to whether it should be added as a mandatory vaccine, as the there is significant medical disagreement here (as opposed to moral, which there is also). I suspect it will be useful for it to become mandatory at some point, but that is simply my opinion. That being said, if I contribute an edit, it will be factual, but it may or may not conform to what you would wish it to say. As this is your site, it is your right to censor it. I have edited my STD article to include symptoms, and will add information about consequences of STDs. I will have you note that I included accurate information about both abstinence and condom use. Palmd001 15:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Internal medicine is not a field of specialty for sexually transmitted diseases (Untrue). So I don't see anything that would qualify you to speak about prevention. This is not the place for public-school type sex education claims and speculation.
Let's address this as follows. Post a link of any article you have published on sexually transmitted diseases, and I'll look at it. If you haven't published any articles in this field, then send a link of any article in this field that has acknowledged your contribution in anyway. Since authorship and acknowledgments are usually to large groups of people, this would not deprive you of anonymity. But if authorship and acknowledgments are the empty set for you in this field, then perhaps your interest is akin to that of sex ed teachers, and this site is not going to become a place for that.--Aschlafly 15:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

You are misinformed about the nature of Internal Medicine. STDs are part of the usual scope of internal medicine practice, and all internists are considered qualified to comment, diagnose, and treat them, just as much as we would diabetes or hypertension. Please refer to the sectino in Harrison's Textbook of Internal Medicine, the main reference for my field. I do not do a lot of publishing but I do have a few articles on hepatitis C I could dig up for you, but it is irrelevant. If you do not acknowledge my expertise in my own field, you probably should not trust your own internest. Please feel free to email me at my private email address if you wish. I can provide it to you privately, but I do not wish to post it here. I have to admit, you got my hackles up a little with that one, as you are a bit over your head here.

Oh, and please...have this...I have not attempted to particularly mask my identity, so if you want to figure it out, you probably can, but why bother, unless you wish to harass me. Palmd001 16:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)Wright TL, Hollander H, Pu X, Held MJ, Lipson P, Quan S, Polito A, Thaler MM, Bacchetti P, et al. Hepatitis C in HIV-infected patients with and without AIDS: Prevalence and Relationship to Patient Survival. Hepatology, 20: 1152-5, 1994. Palmd001 16:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

No offense should be taken, and none was intended. As I made as clear as possible, this site is not the place for sex ed. speculation. You're not a specialist in this field, apparently, but you want to opine about it. That's fine, but don't post your opinions here on this topic. There is no reason to be offended. I feel the same way about the sex ed so-called experts (sometimes called sexperts) who like to talk sex with teenagers in our public schools. For some reason the topic of sex attracts many teacher wannabees. How many of them would like to teach our kids a good math course instead?
This is encyclopedia, not a sex ed reference manual. I don't mean to cut you off at this point, but I have do some other things now. Feel free to respond, but it's unlikely I'll spend more time on this narrow topic today.--Aschlafly 16:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll take a look at it. --Aschlafly 16:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, i have no interest in talking to children about sex ed, I am not a "sexpert" but I AM an expert in sexually transmitted diseases and I think I have faithfully presented my bona fides. If you cannot accept this, you have a big problem with this site, but as I said, it's yours to do as you wish. BTW, if math were my expertise, I would be happy to contribute, but my speciality is medicine, which is why I have chosen to contribute there. I made very useful edits in HPV Vaccine for you, and posted a non-prurient STD article for you that any parent should be proud to read in order to inform their family as they see fit. I think that you think that I have an agenda that I really do not have.
Palmd001, I looked at your edit to the HPV vaccine. What you added was a liberal claim lacking in any scientific support, a claim that had previously been removed from the entry! Dr. Richard Schlegel, Chair, Georgetown University Medical Center's Department of Pathology, an HPV researched, is quoted in the Washington Post saying the opposite of you stated here. If you wish to discuss this further, don't discuss it here but on the HPV vaccine talk page, where I post Schlegel's comments and link.
Please don't post your speculations and opinions about sex in entries here.--Aschlafly 18:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Have I been banned from this discussion? It appears you have no respect for this expert, despite my proferring of my bona fides. I am perfectly willing to engage in a clean, rational discussion, but you apparently have no interest in truth, be it God's or someone else's. God created intelligent beings to use their intelligence, not to swear vows and bow to false gods such as yourself. Re read your Bible, my friend, and good luck. My God have mercy on your poor, ignorant soul.

Peter Palmd001 21:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

BTW, you have misunderstood Dr. Schlegel I think, but Ill report, you decide. See the transcript: [5]

Palmd001 22:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Merging articles?

Do you have a policy or process on merging articles yet? [6][7] RobS 14:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Rob, please set the policy for us. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:48, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

foul mouths, et al

I noticed that there are people here attempting to turn this into another Wikipedia free-for-all, and they reveal their true colors with the abuse and desperation typical of them. I was sooooo tempted to respond to a clearly-wrong editor in the main talk page over his (censored), but I feel following the rules here is a bit more important than lowering myself to his standards.

So, to that end, I am going to refuse to engage anyone in talk page chatter unless it's to influence an article in a positive manner. And my first article, Bible, is positively done. Now I have to add or improve other Biblical articles to the same standards (Genesis by comparison is trashed!). Karajou 15:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I thank you for the Sysop priveledge!

If you'll notice the Bible page, this is how I want articles overall to look...good to read, good to see, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. I doubt I will use the sysop thing just yet (I don't know how it works!), but the page improving thing is already a done deal.

I also got permission from Rick Meyers, the creator of the E-Sword Bible program, to use a screen shot as an illustration for the Bible article. I am working with him at this moment to ensure the copyright statement is correct. Karajou 17:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Your Bible entry is an absolute masterpiece, better than anything I've seen even in a real encyclopedia. Thank you for raising the quality level up several notches! I'm even going to post a link to it on the main page.--Aschlafly 17:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

RE: Spelling

Warning: changing American spelling to English spelling will result in blocking. In quantum mechanics, you changed the spelling of "behavior" without explanation. Please abide by our simple rules.--Aschlafly 18:52, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok fine, but it was an automatic correction by the spell checker of my version of Firefox which uses a British English Dictionary.--Sm355 18:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, my apologies, then. I was being overzealous!!! I am sorry about that. I try to catch problems early here but I overreacted this time. Thanks for explaining how that happened. I do appreciate your edits, which are good.--Aschlafly 19:06, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality article

I much improved the article on Homosexuality. I think it will create a lot of web traffic. Please tell me how you like it. By the way, there are people trying to say "there is much evidence that homosexuality" is genetic or partly genetic and I think they are SYSOPS. I don't believe they have truly examined the evidence. I am not sure what you are going to do about that. Conservative 19:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I'm sure it will impress many people. Once it gets linked on the front page (Oh please say it will!), it will surely attract lots of traffic. Congratulations, Conservative, you have created a true, conservative masterpiece there. Maybe not quite as impressive as Theory of evolution (which you admittedly worked longer on, so it's an unfair comparison), but still. May I ask what article you plan to improve next? Conservapedia needs more shining beacons of conservatism like your two articles. --Sid 3050 19:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Sid, don't post your sarcasm on my talk page. That is an abuse that will result in blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 20:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I've already posted this on the Commndments talk page, but should there be a commandment about the use of user:talk pages? Myk 22:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

On a non-sarcastic note (though thank you Sid for bringing it up), are there any plans for something similar to Wikipedia's "Featured Articles" to be put on the main page? Right now we don't have too many candidates, though Bible is quite thorough. I would be willing to take the reins of a project like the Article Creation and Improvement Drive (a group of editors who vote on one article, and then devote a week to bring it up to Featured status). I think this would be a good community-building project, and greatly help improve the articles which recieve lots of traffic. Do you think this is a good idea, and if so, do I have your permission to run an experimentation of this project? We can test it out on an article like Jesus Christ. --Hojimachongtalk 20:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree we should have a featured article, great idea! But I think Bible right now is much stronger than Jesus Christ, since the latter has been locked for some time and is really very rudimentary. Boethius 20:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

racism warning

I commented above about a racism spree. Do you think that prosecution should be undertaken? Geo. 20:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for helping get rid of the racism. That junk is often by people trying to embarrass the site. It would not violate obscenity laws but might violate other laws.--Aschlafly 22:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality article

Though this article is now much more comprehensive, I hope that it can be opened to editing again, as there is (I feel) a wider range of teachings by other faithful Christians beyond what is given here. The word for "abomination" is the same as used in Leviticus as the word describing the eating of "fish without scales," since very few Christians literally accept the entirety of Levitical law (killing those who work on the Sabbath, refraining from shaving the corners of their beards, etc.), and since some (however disagreeable we may find it) have ordained gay priests and bishops, I think what is needed here is a summary of this range of views, accompanied surely by whatever commentary and perspective seems best for Conservapedia. Boethius 20:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to help if I can.

Please take note of my comment on User talk:Conservapedia Webmaster :-). --Ymmotrojam 21:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Very impressive. Please contribute some edits here and let's then make you a SYSOP.--Aschlafly 22:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Huey gunna getcha

I see you have already expressed concern about this guy. Please can we review his behavior again. I am finding him very belligerent, and he seems to be victimizing my content by making edits that are harmful or superfluous. --BillOReillyFan 22:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Check my edit on the Fibonacci Sequence (subject of this post)- I'll defend its validity to the death. Bill posted a bad example, not an intentional error but an error nonetheless. We're all friends here. --Huey gunna getcha 22:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I checked that silly edit, which is not a problem. But other edits are problems and you've been warned, "Huey gonna getcha." Your user id doesn't warrant confidence either. This is a serious site.--Aschlafly

I don't think I completely understand your warning. I feel that the vast majority of my edits have been necessary and informative. --Huey gunna getcha 23:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)