User talk:Aschlafly/Archive38

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Main Page Link and Stat. Rape[edit]

Hey Andy - first of all, can you link up the main page story to DePaul University? Thanks. Second of all, I'm not done - but some of the states' laws against statutory rape are just absolutely pathetic - I mean, I stopped working on it because some were just so awful (I'll finish when/if I get over it) but wow, I was just completely surprised.--IDuan 19:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks Andy!--IDuan 19:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Andy - can you add Second generation atheist to the Atheism page (the see also section)? Thanks, --IDuan 00:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)


Mr. Schlafly, perhaps you could check my comment. BrianCo 12:17, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Done. Thank you!!--Aschlafly 12:21, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Liberal Christianity[edit]

Nice job on removing the liberal bias! -- ChrisWa

Andy, it amazes me what a poor judge of cyber-character you can be - ChrisWa shows up a day or two ago, writes on his user page that the only reason that we shouldn't follow the Bible and kill all the homosexuals is because it would be "impractical," (does that not set off alarm bells? I'd like to think it doesn't make you feel good...) and then goes on to do these textbook-perfect attacks on "liberal bias," and you thank him for doing so? Are you waiting to see how far he will go before he goes all MexMax on you? I'm starting like I'm watching Charlie Brown run at the football, you know? Aboganza 19:48, 26 February 2008 (EST)
Well that's not quite fair, in can be quite difficult to judge accurately based solely on indirect contact - and two days is not really much time to do so. I wouldn't necessarily jump to conclusions like that so quickly, there's no need to drive away new editors with overzealousness. Feebasfactor 20:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Liberal Articles[edit]

Sorry Andy, slight misunderstanding - I wasn't really agreeing with MetcalfeM there... I think the liberal grading entry is fine, I was just wondering if anything in particular had inspired it, or the other recent liberal articles. But if not, nevermind, that's fine (and thanks for the general advice, anyway). Feebasfactor 20:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Apology accepted, but I still find it bizarre that you think a personal experience is necessary to trigger an observation of a fairly obvious phenomenon. Rest assured that I did not receive a bad grade on my homework last week! I teach, by the way, and haven't been a student for many many years.--Aschlafly 20:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Haha, that's funny. :D I guess I was just thinking of it in a bizarre sort of way, eh? Ah well, no matter - I'll watch for that in future. Feebasfactor 20:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Would you like to explain that revert and block?[edit]

You just blocked me for 2 hours, in part for my edit to "Trust".

What exactly do you have against the phrase, "In the United States"? This is the second article where you have reverted my inclusion of that phrase. Here is a quote from the LexisNexis Encyclopaedic Australian Legal Dictionary:

Trade and commerce
The United States generic term for the area of competition law, derived from the structures adopted by American business in the 19th century to overcome instability in cartels (pooling arrangements) caused by cheating on the cartels. The term derives from the trusts created by powerful corporations, trusts that were the original targets of the `antitrust' legislation. The model was the Standard Oil Trust formed in 1832. The most significant United States antitrust Acts are the (US) Sherman Act 1890 and the (US) Clayton Act 1914 . An antitrust law is legislatively defined as a law with the dominant purpose of preserving competition between manufacturing, commercial, or other business enterprises or preventing or repressing monopolies or restrictive practices in trade or commerce: (CTH) Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Act 1984 s 3(1).
In Australia, the area is usually referred to as `restrictive trade practices' ((CTH) Trade Practices Act 1974 Pt IV), and in Europe, as `competition law'.

Now, could you please explain the revert (you didn't bother to at the time). I will assume, should no sensible explanation be forthcoming, that I can reinstate my edit.

You will be pleased to hear that notwithstanding your discourteous actions I am prepared to accept your apology in relation to the matter (should one ever be forthcoming).

This incident and other interactions with you (for example - Talk:Abortionist), however, raise an issue in relation to the so-called 90/10 rule. If I edit a page and you don't like the edit it seems that you feel quite free to revert without explanation (and, as in this case, possibly block me as well). If I attempt to engage you on the talk page you appear incapable of ever accepting that you are wrong and end up accusing me of violating the 90/10 rule (and possibly block me). If I try to comply with the 90/10 rule and just edit the page again I will certainly be blocked.

Why don't you just rename the site CONSERVABLOG and be done with it? --GDewey 20:45, 26 February 2008 (EST)


Uhoh Andy, we have two articles on the same thing, so I have kind of a list here (sorry)

  1. Can you delete Academy Award? It seems to be a copy of Wikipedia - check out the stuff on the bottom
  2. Can you move The Oscars to Academy Awards? That way we have the official name - and I can do the appropriate redirects if you do this.

Thanks!--IDuan 20:50, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Hang on a tick. Academy Award does not, from a quick look, appear to me like a copy from Wikipedia. As such, there is no basis for deleting it, and it would be better to merge the two articles into one. Philip J. Rayment 20:58, 26 February 2008 (EST)
Well it's a copy of something- the list at the bottom is obviously composed of links that we don't have--IDuan 21:36, 26 February 2008 (EST)
Specifically, it's a copy of wikipedia (see Nominations section - which is the exact text in part of our article - and see the bottom, which is those links--IDuan 21:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
Yep, okay. I didn't have time then for a better check, but the badly-formatted lists suggested to me that they were not from Wikipedia, which would not have them that way. Most copies people make from Wikipedia are from the source, complete with Wiki markup. This appears to have been just the text. But what "links" are you talking about? The article has none beyond the "Criticisms" section. Philip J. Rayment 04:55, 27 February 2008 (EST)

More Deletions Needed[edit]

Andy - in addition to the above, can you also delete two vandal articles? Hey Iduan! WHY DON'T YOU DELETE THIS? OH WAIT ... and Carefree Lifestyle; Thanks, --IDuan 22:58, 26 February 2008 (EST)


Hi, DavidR redirected me here from a conversation on his talk page. Does Conservapedia have an IRC channel that you use? Chevrefuqae 21:59, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Not officially, but there are unofficial ones. I don't use them myself so my try asking other contributors.--Aschlafly 22:01, 26 February 2008 (EST)
OK thank you. Chevrefuqae 22:01, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Writing class[edit]

Remember how you passed around that packet for your students to find the typo. Well, that pales in comparison to the misprint in my telecommunications book. Following page 159, comes a reprint of page 60. The reprint reminded me of the 2/14/08 class. -^_^- Fuzzy 23:05, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Wow! Well, standards have fallen ....--Aschlafly 23:18, 26 February 2008 (EST)
I think whoever printed the page read "160" as "60" and printed the text from that page. I wonder what would have been on page 160.. *ponders* -^_^- Fuzzy 23:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)
That's the advantage of a wiki like Conservapedia. Write page 160 yourself here ... and you'll really know and understand it!--Aschlafly 23:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)


Andy, I'm somewhat concerned since I haven't gotten any information from you (although I did not request any, so don't worry too much). My teacher said that the recommendation you requested would be sent today - and I'm afraid I gave her the wrong address; she just sent me an email saying she sent it, so would you mind just confirming with me that you received it? Thanks, --IDuan 23:38, 26 February 2008 (EST)


Mr. Schlafly, I created a bottom navigation box template {{Liberalism}} for Liberal traits and characteristics. I haven't used it anywhere yet as I thought it should get some sort of senior approval first. BrianCo 16:00, 27 February 2008 (EST)


Hey Andy - I'm just unblocking myself so I can ask you what's going on? I mean, are you upset because you didn't receive the email? (Update: the teacher could not send the email yesterday - she said it would be done tomorrow - sorry for the false alarm - but is that really a reason to block me?) - sorry, I just got an email from the teacher that a student got on her account and that email shouldn't (not wasn't) sent - nonetheless she assured me it was a mistake and the student would write you (and me) an apology).--IDuan 16:04, 27 February 2008 (EST)

We'll pray for you, Iduan. Hope it helps.--Aschlafly 16:38, 27 February 2008 (EST)


I have a query about the conservapedia commandments. I think its the second commandment that states something about everything must verifiable and another one (I forget which commandment) states that you do not allow gossip. If this is so then why are so many articles here contain unsourced statements which, by their nature, become gossip. One example is on the Barrack Obama page where it talks about affirmative action. I know there has been debate about this on the talk page and I do not wish to enter into a debate about Obama with you, all I want to know is why some people (and some articles) are able break the commandments which you have laid down? We should all be held to the same standard shouldn't we? MetcalfeM 19:22, 27 February 2008 (EST)

That's kind of strange for you to say, isn't it, MetcalfM? Your edit to the Sex Pistols is devoid of any references whatsoever, yet you complain that the rest of us are not doing what you refuse to do? Karajou 19:28, 27 February 2008 (EST)

OK then, I'll take it out. No problem. Or I'll even add a reference, even better However if I am to take my edits out because the are unsourced then shouldn't other unsourced edits (such as Obamas AAction claim) be removed also? There needs to be some sort of cohesion here. MetcalfeM 19:32, 27 February 2008 (EST)

You can and will do better than that,'re going to go through ALL of your non-talk edits and provide sources, because there are none. So how do you explain your demand that the rest of us provide source material when you wont? Karajou 19:34, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Sure, no problem (just added ref to Sid vicious's death etc). You have called on me to reference my edits and that I will. Now, can I call on you, aschlafly and everyone else to do the same? MetcalfeM 19:42, 27 February 2008 (EST)

I'm constantly adding references, and you should too, MetcalfeM. The point of a wiki is to be a work-in-progress. Some statements observing a lack of something (such as Obama's achievements) are self-evident by the lack of evidence or references to the contrary. The rare statement that there are no references for something obviously cannot itself have a reference!--Aschlafly 20:00, 27 February 2008 (EST)

I will work on making my referencing better and more concise in future. I just needed to have a gripe about the more controversial claims not being backed up and a seemingly double-standard approach to the 2nd Conservapedia Commandment. I would like to see info relating to the Wikipedia Police for example. Claims like that look slanderous without proof and degrade the reliabilty of this site. Thanks for listening. MetcalfeM 20:08, 27 February 2008 (EST)

OK, I'll add some cites to the Wikipedia police entry. Thanks for pointing that out.--Aschlafly 20:39, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Awesome, cheers for that. Enjoy your evening (while I slog through my work day...groan) MetcalfeM 20:45, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Ben Schumin contributions[edit]

Mr. Schlafly, perhaps you could check out the pages created by user:BenSchumin I feel thay may be parody. I blocked him for one day pending a review. BrianCo 18:57, 28 February 2008 (EST)

That user is obviously a parodist. Bohdan 18:59, 28 February 2008 (EST)

His 'Liberal Insanity' article is a little....odd. MetcalfeM 18:59, 28 February 2008 (EST)


DukeAra is correct. Churchill was educated at a preparatory school - run by a sadistic headmaster - prior to his going to Harrow. Koba 10:21, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Numerous internet discussions say otherwise, and please continue any discussion about this on Talk:Homeschooling. See, e.g., [1]

Edit Rights[edit]

Hello Andy, I was wondering if I qualify for night edit rights yet. It would be very helpful to me, as most of the time I don't get home until a few minutes after the edit locks are put on. Thanks,  L.S.  17:50, 29 February 2008 (EST)

You have zero substantive edits on the last month. Let's revisit this after you're able to contribute substantively and significantly. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:53, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Next Contest[edit]

Hi Andy,

I will be busy with work endeavors through the end of March and will unable to contribute the time that a contest would require. I thought you should know this and I understand if you wish to start another contest before then.


Learn together 18:09, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks for letting us know, Learn together! Please keep in touch.--Aschlafly 18:13, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Copyright status of Conservapedia screenshots[edit]

G'day Andy, I'd like to know what conditions a screenshot of the site, say the homepage, can be licensed under. I've read Conservapedia:Copyrights, but I'm not sure exactly what that translates to. Would public domain be a fair description, or something else? Freethought 18:35, 29 February 2008 (EST)

"Freethought", please see Conservapedia:Copyright. We are unlikely to have a problem unless your intended use (which you have not yet explained) is obviously and unfairly hurtful.--Aschlafly 19:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)
This relates to use on Wikipedia. I suppose that, given the homepage has the logo on it, it would probably be copyrighted. In any case, a 'do as you like as long as it's not hurtful' condition is too restrictive to qualify for any license I know of, so I think fair use will have to do.
How about the image of yourself that you said Wikipedia could use? You say 'released rights', but what does that mean exactly? We've interpreted it as 'public domain', but if you don't intend for people to use it to make fun of you, which they obviously can under public domain (or even GDFL etc.), you're going to have to be more specific about 'released rights' (e.g. 'released some rights, but not others'). Freethought 20:49, 29 February 2008 (EST)
Again, you're oddly failing to disclose what you want to do. Moreover, you didn't quote me accurately; I said it would be OK unless "obviously and unfairly hurtful." Any use of Conservapedia that misrepresents what it is, as you implicitly just did with your quote of my position, is unacceptable.
I can't be any clearer than I have been. If you won't say what you want to do, then I can't specifically tell you if it's OK.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a record of distorting and smearing people unfairly. See Bias in Wikipedia. If that's what is planned, then forget about it.--Aschlafly 20:58, 29 February 2008 (EST)
What I want to do is add a screenshot to the Conservapedia article, as is the custom with articles on websites. It currently only has the logo, and the picture of yourself.
I wasn't quoting you, just giving a general description of your conditions. "Obviously and unfairly hurtful" still clearly disqualifies it for PD, or any other license I've heard of. The GDFL, for example, doesn't say anything about not using material to satirize its creator.
What about the picture of you I mentioned, the one about which you said "Wikipedia can use [this picture] without restriction" [2]? Would you like to change your wording on this one? I wouldn't want to misrepresent your intent, despite what bias in Wikipedia might say (and I'm sure that is, no doubt, a well referenced, factually accurate, and certainly non-biased article). Freethought 21:17, 29 February 2008 (EST)
I mean what I say, but I'm losing confidence that my position is being adequately represented by others. Your quote was not an accurate statement of my position, for example. And I'm beginning to suspect that the real intent here is not use by Wikipedia, but use by other sites, such as by pathetic sites that hate and lie about conservatives.
State what your intended use is, or please stop wasting my time. Thanks. Our rules against 90/10 talk apply to everyone, including you. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:33, 29 February 2008 (EST)

CPAC News headline[edit]

Thanks for providing the news article on the CPAC convention. It was great to see you and Phyllis were presenters and they even mentioned Conservapedia. I hope to see a positive article on the convention that we can place on the news section. --Crocoite 09:46, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks. CPAC was fantastic, bigger than ever. It's an annual event and maybe you can make it in the future! There are other good conservative conventions also.
Your Breaking News work is so good I'm going to put something about it in our new FAQ. This is stuff that is not easily found in one place anywhere else. Thanks again.--Aschlafly 09:57, 1 March 2008 (EST)
I hope to make the CPAC convention next year. It would be fun to have several days of conservative bliss. Maybe we could have a Conservapedia seminar / get together during that time.
You probably noticed I placed a link to the FAQ page on Mainpageleft. The FAQ page is another great addition to Conservapedia. --Crocoite 13:26, 1 March 2008 (EST)
That's a terrific idea! Both of them!--Aschlafly 14:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)


I reverted your decision on deceit because its incorrect , the vast majority of the examples are political. You said if i could name something and source it then it would be ok. I knew you would delete it. --Realist2 19:12, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Almost none of the examples are of deceit by politicians, just as I said. If you insist on including Nixon, then there should be one about Clinton, who actually was impeached, and then one about Johnson concerning the start of the Vietnam War, and it will never end.--Aschlafly 19:21, 2 March 2008 (EST)



I was wondering in what manner exactly are my articles cartoonish? I was following the style set in this place by articles such as Deceit, Liberal, Liberal Denial, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal Hate Speech, Liberal grading, Deliberate ignorance, Liberal logic and of course the internet-wide famous Homosexuality series etc. etc. I fail to see how articles of mine, such as Liberal Obstruction and Liberal Vandalism meet the criteria of 'cartoonish'. I only recently discovered conservapedia, but am excited to get the chance to write to a factual encyclopedia which ignores the Liberal Bias employed by Liberal Wikipedia. I apologise for my frequently poor grammer, I have always had a problem with that. Although one might blame the Liberal Public School System for such an err of character, it is in fact a result of my Attention Deficit Disorder (I type much too quickly, often causing simple mistakes).

Regards, Ben Schumin. BenSchumin 07:03, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Don't quit your day job, Ben. Jay Leno has nothing to fear from your poor attempts at parody. By the way, you even misspelled "grammar" above.--Aschlafly 08:44, 3 March 2008 (EST)
I've sent him back to his day job for a month. Philip J. Rayment 09:01, 3 March 2008 (EST)
I took some time away from my day job to start an article on nation building. --Ed Poor Talk 09:04, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Nice work, Ed. Unless you object, I might add information about how the neoconservatives support nation-building.--Aschlafly 09:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)
That would be splendid, as it would show the robust debate among conservatives about ways and means. We're all against dictatorship (unlike Liberals who love Cuban communism) here, but the question is what to do about it. --Ed Poor Talk 09:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

News contest[edit]

I created a draft page for a future Conservapedia News contest. I would appreciate your review and comments on the talk page. --Crocoite 12:41, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I found this article you might be interested in Wikipedia Founder's Fling With Columnist Ends in Nasty Public Breakup. After reading the details, I decided it's too graphic for the Main page. --Crocoite 18:22, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Violation of Commandment #1[edit]


CP "Potato Incident"


Wikipedia "Potato Incident" --Jdellaro 16:09, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Your comparison is meaningless. Most likely both are from a government, taxpayer-paid source that is properly available to all.
Jdellaro, guess what: the U.S. Constitution is the same on CP and WP also!--Aschlafly 16:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Actually, Aschlafly, you're incorrect, in this case. I did a google search using an exact line for the version here at Conservapedia, and this was the only government result I found: [3] As you can plainly tell, the formatting in the relevant section is far different from the version here, whereas the version here is the same as the version at Wikipedia. Barikada 15:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)
The "formatting in the relevant section is far different"??? That's meaningless. The issue is whether the text is the same as a government source, and I expect it is.--Aschlafly 15:11, 4 March 2008 (EST)
That's my point, Mr. Schlafly. It is not. Barikada 15:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, should you not respond in the next... Oh, hour, I shall enforce the First Commandment of Conservapedia, The Trustworthy Encyclopedia with relation to the "Potato incident." Do you have any objections to this, Mr. Schlafly? Barikada 20:08, 4 March 2008 (EST)
Barikada, relax. I've been busy with weightier issues, and more substantive contributions of my own. Did you check with the author of the entry that you seem so determined to delete?--Aschlafly 20:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)
I do not seek to delete the entry; Simply the plagarized section. However, as you requested, I shall contact Karajou. Barikada 20:15, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Wrong Placement[edit]

Ashlafly, I never thanked you for the commendation and suggestion that I add my name onto the contest. I want to do that (thank you!) now. Maybe, I will for the next contestBertSchlossberg 15:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Retrieved from ""

You're welcome! Before long, you'll be like a pro around here, and explaining things to other new editors!--Aschlafly 20:05, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Essay/Debates vs. Articles[edit]

Aschafly, I notice that a few of the articles you've written (dealing mainly with atheists/liberal) don't seem to belong as an article in an encyclopedia (the most recent example being Racial censorship).

I think you should seriously consider placing a lot of these as essays or debates. DLerner 22:28, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Your criticism is an example of liberal censorship. The racial censorship entry is well-supported and undeniable.--Aschlafly 08:55, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Criticism is not censorship; Stifling it is. Barikada 16:39, 5 March 2008 (EST)
But you didn't simply criticize it. Instead, you proposed censoring it as an encyclopedic entry in the Namespace.--Aschlafly 17:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Calling opinion "opinion" rather than fact doesn't seem to me to be censorship; it seems to be calling a spade a spade.-PhoenixWright 17:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
It's not merely "opinion". The entry is fully supported, factually based, and hardly disputable.--Aschlafly 17:43, 5 March 2008 (EST)
The, uh, "citation" is an opinion piece, published only online, and clearly pandering to a far-right base. Is that the type of citation you think belongs in encyclopedias?-PhoenixWright 17:46, 5 March 2008 (EST)
It probably belongs in this one, to be fair. --Crookles 17:59, 5 March 2008 (EST)
The professor was not "pandering" to anyone, but was making an insightful observation that is undeniably true. This is what encyclopedias are for: insights.--Aschlafly 18:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)

So may I write an article supported by an opinion piece of my choice, call it an insight, and be assured of its veracity and home in the mainspace? Or is what's an "insight" a subjective judgment of the Site Management, collapsing Commandment #1 into "ensure whatever you post is exactly what Aschlafly wants," and granting a blanket exemption to Commandment #5 to administrators with conservative viewpoints?-PhoenixWright 18:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

No, AmesG, we don't believe in relative truth here. Something is not true or false based on who says it, but on whether it really is true or false. Racial censorship is undeniably true and its entry is informative and well-supported.--Aschlafly 18:58, 5 March 2008 (EST)

There's the name again! What the blank! Okay, I'll try to make it more factual.-PhoenixWright 19:00, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Dammit, Andy. Let's look at that one again:

  • Something is not true or false based on who says it, but on whether it really is true or false.
Indeed. Score yourself as many points as you see fit.
No, absolutely not. Not unless you allow yourself such a trivial definition of truth as to make striving for it next to worthless. Stop backing yourself into corners, man - it's becoming painful to watch. Leda 19:39, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Do yourself a favor, Leda: open you mind a bit.--Aschlafly 20:55, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Aschlafly, you seem to delight in these kinds of ad hominem attacks. While that's very telling about a number of things, it's not very telling about what you're actually trying to argue. "My argument is factual," "you're a liberal," "you're biased," and "open your mind" tells me nothing about your point... but it tells me a lot about you.-PhoenixWright 21:07, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Andy, I'm not trying to censor you! In fact, I encourage you to write all this. My beef is posting it as fact when it is clearly opinion. Allow me to quote Conservapedia Commandment #5 "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages.". That's all, I don't want to censor ANYONE, there are proper places on the site for everything! DLerner 21:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)

So what? Last time I checked expert opinion is generally treated as citeable fact. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 14:19, 6 March 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that what you're talking about is in a court of law, where an objective arbitrator, a judge, can examine the expert using particularized indicia of reliability (see Federal Rules 701-702), and opposing counsel can cross-examine the expert before s/he's even qualified as such. I don't think that Conservapedia resembles a court of law, with its institutional guarantees of fairness, at all. As you can probably see, there's no guarantee of cross-examination whatsoever, ergo no guarantee of good "expert witnesses." So... no.-PhoenixWright 14:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Conservative Bias[edit]

I humbly beg permission to raise a number of points? American conservatives generally pride themselves on holding values such as "Freedom of Speech" dear, but how is it that when I try to raise a point on another user (Conservative)'s talk page, I immediately get banned for not obeying "the 90/10" rule, while he (Conservative) posts as if expecting a reply?

Also, how can an encyclopedia, which ANYONE can edit, ever be trustworthy. I see a great many articles with titles such as "Liberal Hypocrisy", "Liberal Denial" etc... I ask you, do similar articles appear on Wikipedia with "Conservative" replacing "Liberal"? I have punched several into the search bar, but am failing to come up with any articles. I ask you, who writes these things? Why are there no articles such "Conservative Bias"? Frankly, no system is perfect, and Conservatism should not be labeled as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dagon367 (talk)


I made a bot that can make several stubs that repeat a common pattern for example,

George Washington is a former President of the United States of America.

Abraham Lincoln is a former President of the United States of America.

Ronald Reagan is a former President of the United States of America.

This can be useful in making several biography stubs

If you are interested contact me on my talk page says people can make bots

It will help increase the number of articles on conservapedia, making people more likely to find conservapedia on a search result --Quizzy 20:55, 5 March 2008 (EST)


Thanks for your added refinements to Swift-Boating. --Crocoite 18:31, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Why did you ignore this?[edit]

It just occured to me Aschlafly that you actually quote mined my comment in the above debate. I said -

"What I am trying to point out is that if there are other avenues (like I stated above with lunchtime bible study (or Koran study even?), school chapel etc) then there is not a need for any classroom prayer of any kind"

To which you replied -

"So your statement that "there is not a need for any classroom prayer of any kind" is a bit like saying "there is not a need for a textbook or a teacher, or for water in a desert."

Not only did just use a small section of what I said, you also took it right out of context. I thought only liberals/evolutionists did that? MetcalfeM 15:21, 6 March 2008 (EST) MetcalfeM 19:48, 6 March 2008 (EST)

I stated your position correctly: you oppose classroom prayer. This isn't complicated, and on Conservapedia we are not fooled by liberal denial.--Aschlafly 20:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Actually you didnt state my position correctly at all. I said I didnt mind as long as there was no disagreement. But you quote mined me. Does that make you a liberal? MetcalfeM 20:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

That isn't what you said above. You indicated an opposition to classroom prayer "of any kind." Besides, if all it takes is a "disagreement", then your new qualification is meaningless.--Aschlafly 20:14, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Explaining myself[edit]

Dear Aschlafly. I was adding categories to articles so that articles on related subjects can be found easily on the category page. At the moment articles to do with Liberals and what they get up to. See Category:Liberals for examples. If you don't approve I will cease forthwith. Categories do have the advantage of enabling visitors to find subject matter easily rather that having to second-guess what the articles dealing with such matters may have been named. JamesCarmody 20:24, 7 March 2008 (EST)

You've described an odd way to begin to edit an encyclopedia. Please try contributing in a substantive way first, and then let's revisit categorization. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:30, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Improving navigational usability seems to me to be a fairly substantive way to make a contribution to an online encyclopedia. JamesCarmody 20:48, 7 March 2008 (EST)
No, it's not substantive, and it's an odd way to begin. Let's seem some substantive contributions so we can learn. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)
I have added the substantive contribution usability so that you can learn. If you'd rather not learn I'm sure I could find somewhere else where my time and effort will be appreciated. It might be a good idea to grant volunteers some leeway[4], show some gratitude[5], and treat them with respect or you may find yourself trying to build an online encyclopedia all by your self. JamesCarmody 21:14, 7 March 2008 (EST)
I hope you can contribute something more insightful than usability. This is a high-quality site, and we will keep the quality high.--Aschlafly 21:21, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Fair enough. I let you have the last word. JamesCarmody 21:31, 7 March 2008 (EST)
You're an unimaginative parodist until the end. Feel free to return if and when you want some insights and real knowledge.--Aschlafly 21:44, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Embraced deceit[edit]

A new term to me - could you possibly give a definition, perhaps in a new entry? Thanks, Koba 14:04, 8 March 2008 (EST)

OK, it seems clear to me, but I'll explain in an entry: embraced deceit. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:13, 8 March 2008 (EST)
Thanks - Koba 14:16, 8 March 2008 (EST)


Why does the word Rational followed by the word wiki trigger the spam filter? Isn't this Conservative censorship? I wanted to mention it on my user page. DLerner 14:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Advertisements have always been prohibited here. See point 5 in our rules.--Aschlafly 18:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Human reproduction[edit]

Hello Mr. Schlafly,

I feel that the draft on human reproduction is sufficiently clean and concise to be moved into an article. I have message karajou, but he appears to be away. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by McGavin (talk)

Where is your draft?--Aschlafly 18:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
He posted on Karajou's page that it's here. Philip J. Rayment 18:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Don't think it's encyclopedic enough. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:39, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Conservative bias[edit]

Hi i am concerned that you might have a conservative bias! lol ! You allowed unsourced information about clinton onto the deceit page. Was this a lapse in judgement?--Realist2 17:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Is it true? For a user who quoted a source, and then incorrectly stated that Nixon was impeached, your knowledge base appears to be suspect even when the information is in front of you. Also, I see you created a one line article, spelled incorrectly, and did not put a source or category. Creating a complaint about that which you blatantly chose to ignore yourself has just earned you a block. Please take the time to consider your actions while you rest and see if you can't come back in a more constructive mode. Learn together 04:27, 12 March 2008 (EDT)#


"When my results showed the Woodhouse Grove [a Methodist boarding school in Yorkshire] was plainly failing to produce a scholar, I was taken away and tutored privately" - Poulson, John, John Poulson - The Price. The Autobiography of John Poulson, Architect (London 1981)p17. Poulson was a significant figure in 20th century architecture and clearly was homeschooled. What is your problem with this? Koba 08:10, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

There was no explanation of why he was prominent, and the link seemed to be to some kind of scandal. The entry seemed inappropriate and designed to embarrass.--Aschlafly 09:49, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
But why should the truth embarrass? Surely we should be upholding truth in this encyclopaedia, without fear or favour. Koba 10:04, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
You're not doing that. The edit gives a misleading impression. Ditto for the edit to minister's son, which portrays William Kidd as worse than he was (and more prominent than he was) in order grind an ideological ax.--Aschlafly 12:24, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
The only axe I wield is for truth and Conservapedia.Koba 12:26, 12 March 2008 (EDT)


Hey Mr. Schalfy!

I am writing my essay on the gun control topic. is it okay if my essay is more about gun control, and the falacies behind it, as opposed to exactly what the homework said?

Thanks, --Chris 20:26, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Question for you[edit]

When I want to reference a specific section of a long article eg. Talk:Main Page, how do I link to it directly in the edit summary? Thanks in advance DLerner 12:42, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Not sure. I've wondered myself sometimes. If there is a table of contents in the page, then you can click the link in the table and then your url will show you the direct link to the appropriate place. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:19, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Thank you DLerner 13:22, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
"[["+"page title"+"#"+"section_name"+"]]", e.g. user_talk:Aschlafly#question_for_you Ajkgordon 13:52, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Thanks much!--Aschlafly 14:03, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Oh, forgot to say, all spaces should be filled with underscores. Ajkgordon 14:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
No, underscores are not needed. user talk:Aschlafly#Question for you works fine.
Also, to avoid problems with links being broken because someone changes the heading, it's a good idea to put a comment such as the following just below the heading:
<!-- NOTE: This heading should not be changed as it is linked to from such-and-such article. -->
Philip J. Rayment 22:06, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Four dozen new articles[edit]

For your reading pleasure: David Copperfield, Uriah Heap, Chi Haotian, 1995 Gorelick memo, Jamie Gorelick, Statistical sampling, Seduction of Eve, Unholy Alliance, General Fallon, Anti-war, M*A*S*H, 10th and Wolf, Cosmic rays and cloud cover, Ui Jong Bu, Socialism and global warming, Radical environmentalism, Money and science, Global warming skepticism, Air temperature and carbon dioxide, AGW hypothesis, The Skeptical Layman's Guide to Man-Made Global Warming, Environmental problems, Average surface temperature, GLOTA, The West, Thermometer, Lysenko, CJK, Politics and religion, Pidgin and creole, SOV language, Japanese and Korean, Easter egg, Role-playing, Cambrian explosion, Clipboard, Contradiction, Apache web server, Discrediting attack, Public opinion, Apache, LAMP, Dong Du Cheon, Camp Casey, Prisoner abuse, US POWs in Vietnam, Kent State protests, Simone de Beauvoir, Wesley Pruden --Ed Poor Talk 16:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Very good, Ed. Koba 17:02, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Awesome, Ed!!!--Aschlafly 17:19, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, and excuse me if I have a nice word to say about Gov. Spitzer. I have to live in this state, even if, as you pointed out, "He put the best spin on it" when he resigned. --Ed Poor Talk 18:41, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, Ed. Spitzer was probably the biggest promoter of abortion in any elected office, not to mention his overzealous prosecutions in furtherance of his own career.--Aschlafly 19:01, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I too have created a number of articles. Before I was blocked for a "90/10" violation, I created Fiber, Veteran, Superstition, Secured transaction, Freeze-out merger, Cash-out merger, Tender offer, Yahoo, Improved significantly the marketplace of ideas article, and created the router article. Some of these are just stubs to build on later. I also have since created, Conflict of interest, False dichotomy, Proxy statement, No-action letter, and improved Proxy voting.-PhoenixWright 09:34, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I predict that if you focus on creating articles like this, and if you confine your ideological wrangling to the proper venue, you will have nothing but clear sailing. --Ed Poor Talk 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


He's not the sort of editor/sysop that Conservapedia can afford to lose. My advice to you is to email him and persuade him to come back. Koba 17:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)


Does Conservapedia allow advertisments to be posted as entries? If it does not, this page looks like an ad to me. Blinkadyblink 16:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I see that Conservapedia doesn't allow advertising. Thanks for deleting that article. By the way, if this happens again, should I delete the article myself or ask a sysop? Blinkadyblink 23:12, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't think you can delete articles, so it's best to contact a sysop. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:17, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Public schools and George W. Bush[edit]

Yes, Bush went to two exclusive private schools, but he had prior education in public schools as well.

The source I provided said Bush went to public elementary and middle school in Midland, but attended private high schools in Houston and Andover. Many people attend both public and private schools; I did that, for instance. So, what is the criteria for inclusion in the Public school page? Is it that any celebrity who goes to public school at any time is listed? Or only celebrities who graduate from public high schools? (And if so that needs to be said) ViyotrNielson 05:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't think a bright-line definition is required to reject the claim that George W. Bush is a product of public schools. If you want to propose a bright-line definition, feel free to do so as long as it results in common-sense distinctions.--Aschlafly 10:43, 16 March 2008 (EDT)


Ok, so what was wrong with my edits on the PA page? You can't just revert everything I do. I am from PA, so I would like to make that article better. VonShroom 13:34, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It appeared to me that your edits (i) copied nonsense from Wikipedia and (ii) resorted to liberal placement bias to downplay the religious foundation of Pennsylvania. Both are unacceptable.--Aschlafly 13:39, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Whatever, ridiculous. Is everything I do going to be reverted? VonShroom 13:41, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
If you can't support your edits any better than saying "whatever, ridiculous," then many of your edits will be reverted because this is a high-quality encyclopedia. It's going to remain high quality that way. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:49, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
It was a matter of why you moved the information to the bottom of the article. While other sites may consider that to be trivial, Conservapedia believes that those aspects that had great weight to the founders of Pennsylvania should be mentioned as such. Also, for population figures, please state a source as they can and will change and it is appropriate to have a date associated with any population number stated. I hope this helps. Learn together 13:53, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Thank you. That answer does actually help, as opposed to the response of "Liberal _______" that I always get. I do appriciate it when I'm given respect. VonShroom 18:57, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

A small spelling mistake on the front page[edit]

The news item about civil unions says " marriage lite" presumably instead of "marriage like"


--JBuscombe 16:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

That's not a mistake: "marriage lite" is intended, as in the article it references. In the U.S., the word "lite" is used to describe something that is less substantive substitute, as in the low-calorie beer brand, "Bud Lite."--Aschlafly 16:41, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Easton's Bible Dictionary[edit]

I came up with a template for citing Easton's Bible Dictionary at User:Qweki2/Easton can I move it to Template:Easton and start using this template--Qweki2 17:29, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Sounds great! Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:47, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

I can't move it because I am not an admin, can you move it?

Done. --Crocoite 20:24, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Also can you upload to conservapedia

I need it for an article

--Qweki2 17:49, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

User:Hihibye is vandalizing the encyclopedia--Qweki2 18:08, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Blocked the vandal. --Crocoite 20:24, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Imbalance in No. articles[edit]

Dear Mr. A. Schlafy

I noticed a massive amount of articles concerning liberals[liberal tricks, liberal deciet,liberal whatever]. People seem to be taking a massive interest in debunking liberals and their ilk instead of writing articles. Perhaps a moratorium should be declared asking people to stop writing about homosexuals,liberals etc. so people can instead concentrate on writing on other topics.

Yours Sincerely

--AlephNull 18:41, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Added square bracket AlephNull 18:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

I thought the problem was reasonable until I saw the list of U.S. agricultural terms-WTF???? It looks as though it was copied from a glossary of some sort. These articles should be amalgmated AlephNull 19:19, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

I could not help but notice that a number of recent edits have turned the Scotland article into a pale imitation of the Liberal biased Wikipedia article:
JockSuith 19:31, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Ostracize a Republican?[edit]

Please see what I wrote on the Liberals and friendship talk page, I would like your input/response. ד.לערנער 21:41, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

theory of evolution article[edit]

Hitting the revert button on your recent changes to the theory of evolution article was the most efficient way to make the changes but I do believe in being diplomatic and not stepping on people's toes. Accordingly, I hope you found/find my explanations/solutions to the "internal dead link" problem for the theory of evolution article that I recently sent you to be satisfactory. If you don't then by all means feel free to revert my revert! Conservative 05:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT)


I was blocked by karajou for being a parodist. He subsequently asked me to take it with you so here I am

Schwange Carpe Diem

Schwange2 15:42, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

(Sorry for using sock,forgot password)


Hi Andy! :) Question: Is there a page where I can leave a request for a Sysop to "protect" an image I have uploaded? I haven't found anywhere to do that. I don't see any sysops around at the moment to ask, and don't want to just leave a request on a random sysop's page (the one I was thinking of asking is currently "protected" anyway). So, how do I leave a request regarding image protection? The image in question came from a public domain, government (State of California) website and has already been added to the page Jerry Brown. Thank you for any information & assistance! I hope you are having a good week! Taj 15:54, 18 March 2008 (EDT)


It's perfectly fine for eg Ed to create meaningless drivel and nobody bats an eyelid, but my perfectly well-referenced and infinitely more encyclopedic entries weren't up to the same high calibre as his dross? Iz it cuz I iz Jewish? 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 17:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Ed's page has been nominated for deletion. Plus, you admitted on another website that what you were doing was parody. DanH 17:39, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
No I didn't - quote it. Also, 99% of Ed's garbage should be AfD. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 17:41, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

This seems to be an example of WP:POINT. Even though this: "If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked." is a wikipedia policy, I think it is a pretty good one. Now that it is over, we must consider if Fox was making a good point? Bohdan 17:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I was under the impression that CP considers anything wikipedian to be wrong, liberal, and just generally bad. Can't use POINT, if you dont believe in Wikipedia. --LibertarianShrink 21:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
You are indeed incorrect. Bohdan 21:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
"Hehe. I was just getting warmed up, too." By the way, a better way of making a point might have been to nominate the specific articles of Ed's you objected to for deletion. DanH 17:44, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
Dan, that doesn't say it's parody, that just says he was planning to continue on his path. Frankly, his liberal ______ articles *are* better-sourced and better-written than the others, and they actually seem to describe, well, actual stuff.
What is he disrupting? Here's a fun game - show all of the liberal _____ articles to a neutral party and ask them to pick out the parodies, without knowing who wrote which. Go ahead... I'll give you VERY good odds on somebody picking his as being the disruptive, parody articles. Aziraphale 17:49, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
Some of what's there may be over the top. That's my personal opinion. But that's not what's at issue, although it might be part of the point he's trying to make. What's at issue is adding the Liberal category to things that have nothing to do with liberals. User:JamesCarmody was blocked for adding that category to pages such as Liberal arts. DanH 17:50, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
Interesting. I'll let you do a parlay bet with the same great odds I'm offering above, with the second wager being on whether it's the categorization issue that most anyone (including Fox) has in mind with any of this. Dunno what wagering laws are like in your state, but we could make it a gentleman's wager if you prefer. Aziraphale 17:53, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Ummm, what are we talking about? Philip J. Rayment 22:11, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

(The following post was moved from my talk page so that it would be with the question. Philip J. Rayment 05:01, 19 March 2008 (EDT))
The discussion on Andy's talk page deals with Fox's edits earlier today which led to his desysopping. DanH 22:34, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
Hi, Philip. :)
Looks like we're talking about Fox reaching his personal breaking point with the Liberal ______ articles. He posted articles that were, technically, good solid articles that began with "Liberal" (to my mildly-trained eye they seem more valuable than the contended ones from before), but could (and probably should) be seen as criticism of those earlier Liberal _____ articles.
Hilarity ensued. The beauty is, there's absolutely no way to call them "parody," as they're factual, well-written, and properly sourced. There's nothing wrong with them, except a)they may be miscategorized (*maybe*), and b)they ... not sure how to characterize this... they look too good when compared to the other Liberal ____ articles? Something.
So, as far as I can tell, Fox has been demoted for miscategorizing a few (otherwise quality) articles that he wrote. I bet you can get a better answer from behind the scenes, but that's how it reads to the plebes in the stands. Aziraphale 01:11, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Why did you revert?[edit]

My edits to the article Gun were the most balanced and reasonable in the article, and also the only ones with references. Is the purpose of this site just to talk about conservative viewpoints without recognizing any other opinion and silencing anyone who disagrees? Why don't I just delete all that completely unsupported stuff about how liberals think police officers shouldn't have guns?--Mars2035 23:13, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Censorship edit[edit]

Could you please explain the reason for the Censorship edit? You took out almost everything on it ד.לערנער 23:19, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Your edit deleted my example of the most common form of censorship: prohibiting classroom prayer. Many of your additions then diluted and obscured what censorship is today. Your point about Cato is OK as history and please feel free to restore that.--Aschlafly 23:52, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
My edits were moving the "What is not Censorship" to the bottom, and adding a George Bernard Shaw quote, I don't recall deleting anything of yours. ד.לערנער 00:01, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
Please accept my apologies, then. I now see that the offending edits were by AmesG. Sorry. Please feel free to restore your edits.--Aschlafly 00:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

User:Jovi is a vandal[edit]

get rid of him ד.לערנער 23:28, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Taken care of. HelpJazz 23:39, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

World History Time Periods[edit]

Hello, I was looking at the world history course (I am taking AP World History in public school- my oh my I know) and I was just wondering whether it might seem inappropriate to label periods "Middle Ages" and "Renaissance" when these terms are mostly used in reference to European history. The rest of the world has had renaissances and "middle ages" at many different times. Rockthecasbah 07:57, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

No, the rest of the world did not have anything comparable to the Renaissance. You're falling for the liberal propaganda pushed in public schools.--Aschlafly 10:12, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Liberals and friendship[edit]

Please see the talk page, as I've written what I think is an argument against the validity of your references in the article. I would like your response when you have the time. Thank you. The user formerly known as DLerner 10:21, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm a bit insulted (and that's an understatement)[edit]

Andy, why did you use me as an example in deliberate ignorance? That was incredibly insulting. First of all, I'm not a liberal. I've said it over and over and over but still you instist that I'm a liberal. Second of all, I go to the school! I've given my reasons why I don't think it was "liberal censorship", and nobody has made any valid counterarguments. I'm going to take a break for a while lest I make more sarcastic edit comments and you threaten to block me again. HelpJazz 17:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

More World History[edit]

Am I missing things as far as the world history course goes? The Renaissance has a good history written out but then the other categories seem to just have lists of terms and not any summary or explanation of world history beyond reading the articles for the terms that are given. If I might, could I help out by "writing out history" for the time periods I'm learning about currently? I would research extensively beyond what I've learned in school, of course. Rockthecasbah 23:41, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

There are detailed world history lectures under the Educational Index link in the left column on this site, so I'm sure what you are criticizing. But by all means, please do write some additional material here! I look forward to learning from your contributions.--Aschlafly 00:16, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Night editing[edit]

Andy, is it possible for me to get night editing privileges? I'm in Australia, and the time zones make it hard for me to contribute as much as I could. DLerner 10:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, are you gonna answer> DLerner 06:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
I need to check your edit history and receive feedback from other Sysops about your request. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
5 days later... How's it coming along? The user formerly known as DLerner 10:52, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
There doesn't seem to be an outpouring of support for you yet. Do you have any significant contributions that you can tell us about?--Aschlafly 22:37, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Here is a list of articles that I started: Natalie Portman, Passive smoking, Johnny Carson, Voyager 2, National Security Advisor, Galileo Project, Polonium, Harp, Zither, Goy, Yarmulke, Dewey defeats Truman, At Sign, Political Satire, Colbert Report and Junkie. Plus, I've made many other useful edits over a broad spectrum of topics. I've never vandalized and I've reverted vandalism whenever I see it. The only reason the list isn't longer is 'cause I have a limited time frame to use the site. The user formerly known as DLerner 06:26, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I support night editing by DLerner. I can't recall having to roll back any of his edits, and he offers useful criticism even if expressed in brusque language sometimes. This morning, he made a valid critique of my Andrea Dworkin article - posted just as I was making the addition he was suggesting - proving that great minds think alike. --Ed Poor Talk 08:39, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, I'm very blunt.... The user formerly known as DLerner 09:04, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
I do NOT support night editing by DLerner. If any of the interested parties wants to know why I don't support DLerner, send me an email. --Crocoite 20:51, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I would like to know, so please, feel free to tell everyone right here. The user formerly known as DLerner 21:08, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Clarification of 90/10 & your accusations[edit]

Dear Andy, you've continued to refer to me by a name not my own (AmesG). Would you like to make an accusation (if that's what you plan to do), or may I ask you to cease this demeaning practice? Additionally, I was hoping for clarification of the 90/10 rule. Judging by my edit counter, I've made 175 edits, 71 of which are mainspace. So, I don't think I've ever been below the 90/10 parameters. But I was just blocked for 3 days for violating 90/10! Could you please explain, or is the rule really that capricious?-PhoenixWright 15:21, 20 March 2008 (EDT)


I learned about this site from some colleagues of mine at work. They were liberal, so of course they simply mocked and ridiculed the project. But I was intrigued. I think this is a wonderful idea and I'm proud to be a new member. Sadly, I have many engagements, so I can't contribute as often as I'd like. But I'm happy to come aboard. Thank you for creating this DrCB 21:21, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Welcome!--Aschlafly 22:36, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Fifty more new articles[edit]

Recently I started a bunch of new articles: Pen name, Doc Hollywood, Unbreakable, Military spending, Martin Niemoeller, Mercy, Valid argument, Political terminology, Loving cup, Daniel Dennett, The Bronx, Place names beginning with an article, Negotiating with terrorists, Software release, Computer programmer, Software bug, Spinoff article, Tribulation, Liberal code word, Legal rights, Gay rights movement, Temptation, Tamar, John Eccles, Charles Goodyear, Eugene O'Neill, Liberal labels, Liberal media bias, Iwo Jima, Love Story, English to Metric conversions, Frank Kaufmann, Modern science, Alienation, People are animals, Assuming good faith, Michael Polanyi, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, New World Encyclopedia, Genesis 4:7, Borking, Academic dishonesty, Metric to English conversions, Origin of species, The Act of Creation, Koestler, Sadist, Pusher, Bad relationships, Arthur (cartoon), Arthur, Wegman, Liberals and choice, and Mage. Enjoy! --Ed Poor Talk 15:55, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Wow, Ed, that's fantastic!!!! A blessed Easter Resurrection to you!!!--Aschlafly 16:32, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

A Blessed Easter to you and yours -[edit]

Presidential Message: Easter 2008

"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies." John 11:25

Laura and I send greetings to all those celebrating the joyful holiday of Easter.

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ reminds people around the world of the presence of a faithful God who offers a love more powerful than death. Easter commemorates our Savior's triumph over sin, and we take joy in spending this special time with family and friends and reflecting on the many blessings that fill our lives. During this season of renewal, let us come together and give thanks to the Almighty who made us in His image and redeemed us in His love.

On this glorious day, we remember our brave men and women in uniform who are separated from their families by great distances. We pray for their safety and strength, and we honor those who gave their lives to advance peace and secure liberty across the globe.

Happy Easter. May God bless you, and may God bless our great Nation.


A Blessed Easter to you and yours - Taj 00:48, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Resurrection Sunday[edit]

Thank you Andy. The same to you! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 10:26, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

A blessed Resurrection Sunday to you Andy! Thanks for creating the article. --Crocoite 11:51, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, Crocoite! I'm particularly enjoying this Resurrection Sunday!--Aschlafly 15:21, 23 March 2008 (EDT)


Can the Category:Viking Mythology be moved to Category:Norse MythologyDeborah 18:55, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Probably, but why? Happy Resurrection Sunday to you.--Aschlafly 19:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Norse Mythology is a far more common term for it, I have never anyone refer to it as Viking Mythology, All the books I ever read on mythology of the scandanavians, always called it Norse Mythology

"Norse Mythology" has 642,000 results on Google "Viking Mythology" has 14,800 results on Google

Deborah 20:56, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

OK. I'll try moving the category, which I haven't done before. Let's see if it works. A good Resurrection Sunday to you!--Aschlafly 21:39, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
It looks like Andy's discovered that category pages can't be moved. All you can do, as Andy has done, is change the categories on the article pages, delete the old category page itself, and create the new one. Philip J. Rayment 00:00, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Locked article[edit]

Hi the article on the FBI is locked, i wanted to add sources to it as its poorly sourced imo. Could you help with this.--Realist2 20:16, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Hi why is the FBI article permin locked? Id like to continue editing it. --Realist2 21:47, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Professor values question[edit]

Hi. I see that my contributions about some immoral, and quite embarrassing, acts of university presidents were removed from Professor values. If not in that article, which should be critical of higher education in general, not just the professoriate, where would instances like these be placed? Thanks - cplantin

Upload rights[edit]

Hello there. I've seen some people with "upload rights" who can upload images, I was wondering if I have sufficient edits to obtain this ability. I want to be able to upload images for cricket related articles I created. Thanks! -- Mitch U/T/C 23:38, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Uploading rights are earned, and we welcome requests and contributions towards that goal. Please contribute more edits so we can better evaluate your request. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:46, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
Okay thanks, I will contribute more. -- Mitch U/T/C 23:47, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

I have created 60+ articles, can I have permission to upload images -Deborah 18:24, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Can I have permission to upload pictures and to edit after 12:00? --Deborah 17:40, 25 March 2008 (EDT)


Can Venus (god) be moved to Venus (goddess)?

Can {{Nb mythology greece}} automatically put articles in the category:Greek deities instead of Category:Greek Mythology since the material on the template is more related to Greek deities then the more general Greek Mythology

-Deborah 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Did the first request, but haven't yet figured out to do the second. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
I've done the second ([6]), except that in order to conform to our Manual of Style, the category is Category:Greek Deities. Deborah, see also here. Philip J. Rayment 01:01, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Conservatives and friendship[edit]

The last line on Liberals and friendship "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship.[Citation Needed]" is unprovable - a example of Negative proof a logical fallacy. please see what I wrote on the talk page. Since it has been up for a day already and you've said nothing I'll remove the line.

-- D L e r n e r Articulate 21:02, 25 March 2008 (EDT)


Please see my post on talk:mainpage, I only worked out you run the show here. LeaningRight 21:54, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

World Court[edit]

Hi Andy, just wondering about the move of the former ICJ article to this space. The article linked on the front page states that the court is formally known as the ICJ, and the name World Court seems to have been coined by the author, possibly to help his readers understand the concept. As such, perhaps we should move the ICJ article back to its old home, and leave World Court as either a redirect or a disambiguation between the ICJ and the ICC. TheGySom 23:14, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

You may be right. I need to check how the Supreme Court refers to it. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:36, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
You are right. Thanks, TheGySom, for your astute observation. I've fixed it now.--Aschlafly 23:41, 25 March 2008 (EDT)


User:Lbd754 is a vandal though he's only done (so far) to the Pat Robertson article, I already reverted it.

---user:DLerner--- 10:39, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Banned. Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Hello again[edit]

Hi there. I'd like to ask again if I qualified for upload rights, as I've created some new pages and edited a bit. Sorry if I'm sounding impatient, I'm just wondering if I have enough contributions is all -- Mitch U/T/C 21:34, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Generally a bit more is required first, especially substantive edits in addition to minor ones. Thanks for your efforts.--Aschlafly 23:02, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Okay thank you, I think I've got the general idea of editing I need to do first ;). Thanks. -- Mitch U/T/C 23:09, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Liberal reversion[edit]

You reverted to a version which is missing a ton of links to other "liberal" articles. HelpJazz 23:49, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Did you catch the edit summary of the edit I had originally reverted, though? DanH 23:51, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
I see it now. Thanks for blocking him.--Aschlafly 23:59, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
I saw that, but I actually reverted to a version which came before even that edit. When Jimmy made his edit, I think he edited an older version of the page -- one that was missing all the links. He added a fact tag to a statement that wasn't even there before he edited. See Jimmy's edit (scroll down), and the difference between my version and the last "good" version (there is none). HelpJazz 00:03, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
It may be that Jimmy's inappropriate edits skipped over and deleted an intervening inappropriate edit. Regardless, the liberal bias shouldn't be there anymore, like implying that a liberal has justifiable, reasonable beliefs.--Aschlafly 00:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Ok I'm not going to touch that part, but what about all the missing links? More than just the first line was changed. Can I at least add those back? HelpJazz 00:12, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Sure, adding links is always fine. Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:55, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
"Regardless, the liberal bias shouldn't be there anymore, like implying that a liberal has justifiable, reasonable beliefs."
Your a pathetic human being. Goodbye. LeaningRight 10:11, 27 March 2008 (EDT)