User talk:Aschlafly/Archive40

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Feminism revert[edit]

What was wrong with my edits to the Feminism article? I'm not mad or anything but I'd still like to know why my contribution was removed.

Also, I'm new here, and want a custom signature. Do you know how to make them? I don't use one on Wikipedia. Thanks.

Darkknight 20:42, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Your edit made no sense, except perhaps to create a silly strawman. No one argues that one gender is "more intelligent" than the other gender.--Aschlafly 21:48, 20 April 2008 (EDT)


Greetings Aschlafly, i noticed you banned my account for removing an image from the liberal article. The reason given was 'bye'. However i'm back and would like to ask you personaly before you ban me again why I was banned as in my opinion my edit was constructive as i was removing a stupid polital joke with no factual relavence or value. Thank you, Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!

Self-admitted sock; took care of things myself. Jinkas 17:35, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, Jinkas. In reply to the original posting, one should not remove information for ideological reasons. Also, users should check spellings, as the sock's brief message above has 3 misspelled words. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:37, 12 April 2008 (EDT)


Greetings Aschlafly. Is there any chance you could rename my account "Henry"? Thanks, Bohdan 22:38, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately, that name has been taken. If you feel strongly about it, then I can probably delete the user who has that name. If you have a variation on it, like HenryS, that is just as acceptable to you, then I could switch you immediately. Don't create the account; the renaming creates the account for you.--Aschlafly 22:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Sure. HenryS works out good. Thanks. Bohdan 22:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Voila! Done as requested.--Aschlafly 23:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, that was fast. HenryS 23:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)


Hmm.. I shall boldly ask, how many edits will I need to make (before the 28th) in order for you to slightly consider me as being a real sysop? (putting into account my "stunt") o_O Fuzzy|AFD 23:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

You're moving quickly into consideration!--Aschlafly 00:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Err, I realized--after talking to PCS--that being a sysop is quite a bit of responsibility. I figure, whatever gives someone the ability to edit protected pages and upload images will suffice. ^_^; Fuzzy|AFD 15:15, 9 April 2008 (EDT)


Hey, I am just curious, what is the phonetical pronounciation of your sirname? Its a bit of a tongue twister. AdenJ 23:14, 9 April 2008 (EDT)


One user keeps on complaining for me putting Americans into Category:Americans is there anything wrong with this? -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it is non-encyclopedic because it is ambiguous as to whether the category includes all who live in North or South America. Moreover, the category serves no useful or educational function. You wouldn't find "American" in an index listing everyone who qualifies.--Aschlafly 00:23, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
Deborah, as I have posted elsewhere, this is something that can be confusing, and impact to the negative the wiki's search engine. But we certainly do need your help! I have seen the amount of dedication and endless work you have been putting into the category effort, and you are most certainly Heaven-sent! There is a link on my user page to some category discussion....and while I am no longer an Admin here at CP, that does not logically undo all decisions previously made, and approved by Aschlafly, as I am sure you can understand. I am trying to assist Ed Poor and other Sysops in sorting this all out, and your input would be certainly appreciated! Please contact me, my email is enabled via CP, or you can certainly get me on AIM as well. Together I know we can hammer out a workable solution! --₮K/Talk 00:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

What about making a cat called Category:United States People -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Can you explain how you feel this would help the project? --Ed Poor Talk 07:38, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
United States Citizens? That could nest under United States of America....and their chosen professions or what they are notable for, under that...that is in line with previous discussions/decisions to label more specifically notable citizens in each country, etc. --₮K/Talk 08:04, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
Our goal is not to see how many categories we can classify someone under, but rather what defines them as in some way being noteworthy. Please keep categories to a minimum. It's one of the things that separates us from the clunkiness of WP. Learn together 18:45, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
Great point. I agree. Good encyclopedias are concise. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:47, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

We need a category for United States Citizens to make more specific subcategories when times the comes that such is needed and make category navigation easier-- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Deborah, we don't need that. People aren't noteworthy for being United States citizens as the vast majority of our entries on people are from the United States, and it is seldom a topic that school children are asked to write on. A student might be asked to write on China and wants to see everything we have under the topic China, but even if someone was asked to write on the United States, it is unlikely they're going to want to check up all of our citizens to get a good feel for our nation.
Also, when you are considering making a category, please ask yourself if you can complete it, what it adds to the site, and if it will be kept up in the future. I can pretty much guarantee that if someone were to write an entry on, say, Bruce Jenner, they're looking to classify him based upon Olympians or Olympic Medal Winners, not what category of United States citizen they can place him under. Learn together 19:58, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

If I were going to go to Israel a famous citizen like Britney Spears would be categorized as an American singer -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

True, but an Israeli television station would not describe an Israeli singer as an "Israeli singer." :-) Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:37, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
You know, this has been an interesting discussion, but thinking about your last comment has largely convinced me: There should be a "United States Citizens" (or similar) category. Because I think that you are wrong about the "Israeli singer" example. I don't know about Israel, of course, but here in Oz, the media often refer to "Australian actors". Without wishing to sound offensive, it's mainly Americans who think that America comprises the whole world. That's probably why the American-only baseball competition is known as the "World Series".[1] Philip J. Rayment 08:48, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
Hollywood dominates the motion picture industry, so when you say "movie" it goes without saying that it's an American film. I don't have to like it or be proud of it; that's what the unmarked term means, linguistically. French or Australian films would be an exception, so I'd love to see a category for them. Maybe Category:Foreign Films, and then when that gets too big we can subdivide it.
Same reasoning for singers. --Ed Poor Talk 14:55, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
I think you just proved my point. You've got America, and you've got the also-rans: everyone else. Philip J. Rayment 22:48, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps for Americans it can be based off of state of residence such as Texas Singers -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I believe it would be wise to heed what Andy said above about being concise. Our goal is not to see how many different categories we can compartmentalize someone into, but rather, what are they known for? Most people aren't known for being Texas singers or even United States singers. And the lack of upkeep of the category would make it a huge mistake. Our categories right now are generally maintained pretty well, but that collapses under the structure that you are proposing. Learn together 20:19, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree with Learn together.--Aschlafly 20:30, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
As I hinted at above, I wasn't really decided one way or the other. The thing that did convince me was Andy's example of Israeli singers. But apart from that, I don't have a strong opinion. Yet I feel compelled to point out that Learn together's comment that people aren't known for being United States singers is to a fair extent only true in the United States. That is, you are looking at this issue from a U.S. perspective only. Philip J. Rayment 22:42, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Americans typically don't care where a singer -- or anyone else -- is from. Often we're surprised to learn, when we eventually do, that our favorite [fill in the blank] is really from another country. That's because America is a melting pot. Nationality is like ethnicity: the less that people are labeled and categorized by it, the better.--Aschlafly 23:17, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Matters of choice[edit]

pretend that liberals do not have a political point of view, but are just being reasonable. For example, people who insist on promoting abortion with mandatory taxpayer funding claim they are merely "pro-choice".

Yes, good point. And it's ironic that regarding abortion, a "woman's right to choose" is used to justify the act. Yet when it comes to homosexual acts, liberals no longer speak of "preferences" or choices or free will. It is presented as following one's own nature, as human beings were no better than animals. "I kill my mate after copulation, because I'm a spider; that's what my species of spider does." --Ed Poor Talk 12:19, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

New image[edit]

Congratulation! Nice image. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:31, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Block and Delete rights[edit]

That travelingsam is one of several vandals I have caught on here can I have block and delete rights so I can undo their vandalism as soon as possible ? -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

What is...[edit]

Hi there,

I've been looking around here for a little while now, and just got an account. You seem to be head admin here, so I was wondering what this site was specifically about, and what I should do in my edits (I guess I figured it's a conservative encyclopedia). Thanks! TechnoRB 10:18, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Please edit whatever you like. We have simple rules. I look forward to learning from your contributions. Welcome!--Aschlafly 10:20, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
Okay, sounds like I'll try looking around for something to edit. Thanks, TechnoRB 10:23, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Circuit Cases sub-categories[edit]

Please respond to the discussion at Talk:Bundren v. Parriott. --Crocoite 13:57, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the quick reply. I will leave both the main category and subcategory. I'm also adding the relevant subcategories to other circuit cases articles for consistency. --Crocoite 14:28, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Unprotect and move[edit]

Hello again,

I'd like to request the Eric Cartman(South Park) article be unprotected and moved to Eric Cartman (South Park).

I also left a message on the article's talk page.

Thank you! TechnoRB 20:02, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Done as requested, but please keep any entertainment entries in compliance with our rules. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:10, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Interview Query[edit]

I am a student at the University of Arkansas putting together a journal on the subject of mathematics and am very interested in interviewing you about your positions on mathematics and your influence through Conservapedia.

The interview could take place in any form you please, phone, email, instant messaging, etc. If you would be willing, please contact me at my email address gkarber (at) .

Thank you very, very much for your time.

Welcome, and you can simply post your questions here. Please sign your postings by clicking the signature-like bottom above the edit box. Thanks--Aschlafly 16:19, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

I apologize for not signing it. Sorry, I am new to this. I would prefer to conduct the interview in a more back-and-forth setting, and perhaps not in such a public forum. Also, I need some time to do research about you and the issues I would like to ask you about. Nothing bothers me more, and I'm sure you can agree to this, than an interviewer who is anything less than studious when it comes to the people he or she is interviewing.--Gtkarber 19:51, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

OK, please take your time. But I really prefer to do interviews online here, where all can benefit from the questions and answers. This is the way of the future.--Aschlafly 19:56, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree with you on public discussion being the way of the future. I will promise to transcribe the entire interview and post it here, if you wish, but I would prefer to conduct it in some method which would allow an actual dialogue to occur (phone being vastly preferable, but some sort of chatting or instant messaging would function, as well). Posting here and there won't produce as enjoyable a read, which I really want to do with this journal. I want to make mathematics accessible to students who are not math majors. I want to expose them to the subject without the biases of the teaching establishment. Tell me what you think, and thank you very much for responding! --Gtkarber 12:50, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I can respond to your interview questions here, but the more you talk without asking interview questions, unfortunately the less interested I'm becoming. Soon it will be time to move onto other issues on the site. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:32, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Name Change[edit]

Done User:TinkyWinky MichaelC 15:59, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks.--Aschlafly 16:39, 15 April 2008 (EDT)


Hi, I just kicked off the Ferdinand Porsche article (it had been one of the few redlinks in the Homeschooling article), but I gotta run for now. Could you look up and upload a free image of him I can use in the article later on? Thanks in advance! --MilesM 22:05, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Landlocked Countries[edit]

Can I make a category for landlocked countries? --PabloG 10:30, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Sounds interesting. It's fine with me. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:34, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Category:Christian-Majority Countries, Category:Muslim-Majority Countries ? --PabloG 11:06, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

That sounds informative also! Well done on the landlocked countries!!!--Aschlafly 11:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Castle flying a false flag[edit]

I know a user page should be a "castle" but I had to remove this notice claiming that a user was a sysop. --Ed Poor Talk 16:50, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

When a user page will mislead other users as far as who has been granted a position of authority at Conservapedia, then it has to be removed. You did the right thing Ed. Learn together 16:56, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Yeeeeeeeesh, I have to learn through Aschlafly's page that you messed with my pseudo-LOLkhan? If you check the most recent version of Conservative's shout-out to [site I am not allowed to mention], you will see that he posted the same picture with a "Hi, I'm a rational editor on another site and I fail at life and everything"-ish caption. Funny, that one was not deemed to be misleading... I added a note to clarify my user status, though. --MilesM 17:00, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Chinese article names[edit]

Hey Andy! I was hoping you'd be able to help me out with something. I've noticed that many of your articles on China use the Wade-Giles format (Jiang Jieshi, Ch'in Dynasty, Sun Yixian) for Chinese names instead of the pinyin form (Chiang Kai-shek, Qin Dynasty, Sun Yat-sen). The pinyin form is far more widespread and more commonly used (as well as more accurate) than the outdated and archaic Wade-Giles format. Wikipedia, in a strange turn of events, actually has an accurate article on pinyin describing the differences. I was hoping you'd help lead the charge in standardizing pinyin on Conservapedia. Thanks and happy editing! --Ampersand 18:50, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Don't know enough about this controversy to comment. Seems like both forms should be used in the case of "Jiang Jieshi", who was "Chang Kai-shek".--Aschlafly 20:11, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Andy, beware: User:Ampersand is attempting to take you for a ride. The names Jiang Jieshi and Sun Yixian are pinyin while Ch'in is Wade-Giles; while Qin is not Wade-Giles but Pinyin, and Chiang Kai-shek and Sun Yat-sen are certainly not pinyin. Specialagentgrant 07:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I apologize, I should've double-checked that. Nevertheless, Chiang Kai-shek and Sun Yat-sen are the most commonly used versions of those names, and we should be using those instead of what they currently are. --Ampersand 16:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Writing Topics[edit]

Hey Mr. Schlafly. Maybe a good topic would be about evolution and the movie Expelled could be incorporated into it. :P ~BCSTalk2ME 09:35, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Excellent idea, Bethany! Please go ahead and try adding that essay topic yourself at Writing Homework Ten. Thanks!--Aschlafly 09:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Okay! Now let's think of a good one... :P ~BCSTalk2ME 09:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I have spent several hours reading about the claims of Expelled, and the retorts of the Darwinists. It would make fascinating compare and contrast exercise for someone with better writing skills and more time than I have.
Expelled makes two points: (1) The academy refuses to dignify ID as a scientific theory but dismisses it as unworthy of consideration. But 85% of Americans reject the theory of evolution, so (2) The academy literally dismisses ID adherents from academic posts and keeps their articles out of scientific journals, so that students and others won't hear about it.
Basically, Darwinists have resorted to silencing and censoring their critics because Evolution does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Their theory would lose in the marketplace of ideas, so they insist on a monopoly. (Which reminds me of socialist economics, where the government is the only employer and manufacturer, forcing all free market activity underground.
Well, it looks like the underground is emerging ready for battle, and Ben Stein has the academic credibility along with the acting skill to "infortain" the masses and possibly beat the liberal-controlled media at their own game. --Ed Poor Talk 09:57, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, please modify my topic if it needs improving (I think it does). :P ~BCSTalk2ME 09:59, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
It's a great start, Bethany! I'll probably shorten it a bit. Thanks!--Aschlafly 10:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Thanks! ~BCSTalk2ME 10:51, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Writing assignments[edit]

How many more writing assignments will you have? Fuzzy|AFD 13:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Three.--Aschlafly 14:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Topic suggestion: "How is it right that a girl can hit a guy for no reason and have it not considered an attack on the person, but if a guy as much as touches a girl, it's harassment?" Fuzzy|AFD 14:46, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Good suggestion!--Aschlafly 15:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

homosexuality page suggestion to add as external link?[edit]

Hi I just discovered conservapedia. Thank God there is an answer to Wikpedia. I hope you continue to prosper and grow.

As a new member I wanted to add to the homosexuality article in the external links section.

This topic concerns me as the radical left use homosexual agendas to further our societies towards more and more acceptance of this disorder. As you know the APA 'voted' homosexuality out of its disorder status in the sixties (how scientific of them, eh?). Anyway NARTH which stands for the National Association for Research and Therapy for homosexuality has an excellent website and stated mission:

"NARTH is a non-profit, educational organization dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality. Founded in 1992, we are a community of psychiatrists, psychologists, certified social workers, professional and pastoral counselors and other behavioral scientists, as well as laymen from a wide variety of backgrounds such as law, religion, and education. We welcome the participation of all individuals who will join us in the pursuit of these goals."

My request is that they be considered for an external link at the end of the homosexual article.

I am not associated with them but through online study have found that they do good work and are helping to keep authentic scientific mindset regarding homosexuality as a mental disorder instead of blindly assuming its 'natural' as wikipedia does.

PS I realize you are the founder of conservapedia and just want to say THANK YOU for providing this alternative to the extremely biased incredibly (and obviously) left wing proatheistic bias of 'wikipedia'

thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CanadianConservative (talk)

I support the suggestion; NARTH is well known for its scientific accuracy. --Ed Poor Talk 13:58, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
I do not support the suggestion. I do not support it as NARTH teaches that choice is not involved in becoming a homosexual. [2] If sin is a choice and homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuality is a choice. Also, I think the research shows that Christian faith/power of God is far more effective than psychology in freeing someone from the sin of homosexuality (please see homosexuality and Ex-homosexuals articles). Lastly, I don't believe that Sodom was destroyed because they practiced the supposed "neurosis" of homosexuality. Conservative 00:16, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I don't think that's a fair description of the linked article. Yes, the author does say that it's wrong to describe it as a choice. But she also says that it's wrong to describe it as biological. Rather, it's the result of influences, and the homosexual never explicitly chooses to be homosexual. But as far as I can see, she doesn't deny that it's a choice in the sense that they can choose to not be homosexual. I think that equates fairly well with sin. Although we are all responsible for our own sin, how many of us explicitly chose to sin? Quite often, various things influenced us to sin and we did so without realising what we were doing. Yes, in theory, we could have chosen otherwise, and therefore we have to accept responsibility for it, but I think that's not inconsistent with what that author is saying.
Even if the organisation doesn't agree exactly with your (our?) views, I still think it's a useful link to have.
Philip J. Rayment 11:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
PJR, you are correct that NARTH states one can choose to leave homosexuality and that they also state that one does not choose to initially become a homosexual. I see that as biblically problematic as I stated earlier. For example, I do think you inadequately addressed the point that God did not destroy Sodom partly because they were enmeshed in the supposed neurosis of homosexuality. In addition, I did provide evidence that strongly suggest that true conversion and commitment to Christianity is far superior to psychological counseling in the cessation of homosexuality. Given the depravity of man which can be seen in the history of man and certainly has a biblical basis (Jeremiah 17:9, Matthew 7:11 ), the inference to the best explanation is that moral and spiritual failure is the key determinant in regards to the etiology of homosexuality. Certainly there have been cultures which were not at all significantly beset with the sin of homosexuality whereas there have been many cultures that have been. I do find it interesting that liberals do not champion pedophilia as not being a choice/moral failure but very much give special status to homosexuality in regards to it supposedly not being a choice. Conservative 21:21, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I didn't agree that "they also state that one does not choose to initially become a homosexual". I said that the author "does say that it's wrong to describe it as a choice". There is a subtle difference. I think the point that the author is getting at is that describing it as a choice is somewhat simplistic, not that it's not a choice in any sense of the word. And no, I did not address every point you made; but I believe I addressed enough to make my point. Philip J. Rayment 10:06, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree with you, Conservative, to the extent that NARTH denies the role of choice in becoming homosexual then it is obviously mistaken. For example, a person who chooses to "experiment" with homosexual acts can become addicted to it - just as someone who indulges a passing desire to shoplift a small item can get hooked on stealing and become a thief.

Moreover, there is a huge political debate over relationship between homosexuality and choice. The gay rights lobby always claims that "homosexuality is not a choice", meaning that a human being's choices have no bearing whatsoever on the formation of their desires or character - which directly contradicts the Bible in so many places I don't even know where to begin! So I'll quote the secular saying, "Sow a thought, reap an action. Sow an action, reap a habit, etc."

There's also the quibble (or equivocation!) between "doing homosexual acts" and "being homosexual". Both sides agree (more or less) than engaging in any one particular homosexual act is always a choice. We are not robots driven by programming (or zombies ;-) but human beings with free will. A person chooses to engage in sexual activity or to refrain from it (see Ecclesiastes 3:3, "a time to refrain from embracing). God wouldn't tell us to do anything impossible: hard, maybe - challenging, certainly - but not impossible. The capacity to choose whether to indulge a desire or not is what separates us from the animals (see Revelations 22, "outside the city are the dogs and fornicators). --Ed Poor Talk 22:03, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

copyright violation[edit]

Thank you for the prompt reply. This is in response to a blatant copyright violation which has been kindly pointed out by another website. I am looking for a more formal channel of communication with the owner of this website.

regards --Freeze 12:36, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

What's the alleged violation? Just tell me here. No need to complicate it.--Aschlafly 14:28, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Mr Aschlafly I have discovered several images which have been uploaded under the GFDL license.

It is my understanding that GFDL images are not acceptable here as the same license must be imposed. Also there are many images which claim to be fair use but are only used as "eye candy" on a page, instead of identifying the image subject matter and making critical use of it. KTDiputsho 14:42, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

To understand better his claim he should be asked to cite his sources. After reading "the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2" I found no violation at all. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Hi Joaquin,
I have no dog in this fight, but hopefully I can help clarify things a bit: the issue with the GFDL is that it mandates that any product that is published that contains GFDL-licensed contents must *also* be released under the GFDL. Conservapedia rejects the GFDL as being unwieldy and overly-complicated, which is of course Conservapedia's right, but that also means that Conservapedia has no ability to take and re-publish GFDL-licensed material (barring fair use, parody, etc...).
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has an excellent website that can guide you to all manner of clarifications of this sort, if you're interested. :) Aziraphale 13:32, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Aziraphale, the self-appointed GFDL police are not able to claim that GFDL is above the law. The "fair use" exception applies to GFDL also. Suffice it to say that many, many people contributed to GFDL works without intending or supporting that it be used as sword to prevent educational, non-commercial reuse of the material.--Aschlafly 13:59, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Hello, Aschlafly,
That's probably the "(barring fair use, parody, etc...)" thing I mentioned above. I'm sorry if you read that as "the license bars free use" but I meant it in the traditional "the preceding statement exludes the following exceptions".
In other words, I agree with you that fair use is allowed, and the GFDL doesn't expect to stop it either.
What is, and is not, fair use is for you lawyers to figure out. Aziraphale 14:29, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
While fair use may be argued for a single image, assembling hundreds of them and publishing them in one place surely stretches the bounds of what is fair and reasonable. A lawyer who tried to pretend otherwise would be laughed out of court by any competent judge. While use for private educational purposes may be bona fide, an open internet site goes beyond the bounds of what is private educational use and should at least obtain permission for use of images. I doubt that any site of note would unfairly withhold permission for an educational resource. Failing to obtain permission beforehand is not only discourteous, it borders on dishonesty. I can point to an image from the Nobel Organisation web site which has recently been posted at Conservapedia in direct breach of their terms and conditions of using the site. I have posted the relevant details at Image talk:Schweitzer.jpg. I trust that you will take the honorable step of withdrawing it pending written permission. KarenD 18:59, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

It's not a copyright or license violation to use a GFDL image which has not been altered. And GFDL images do not have the "viral property" of GPL software. So stop trying to scare us; it's not going to work.

What we can't do is take GFDL text and alter it here, unless we agree that any GFDL text we were to copy and modify may also be freely copied and modifed. Since our project director declines to permit re-use of contributions to Conservapedia, we must not take and modify GFDL text; in fact, we delete it any time someone dumps it here.

If you are the copyright owner (or agent) for a particular GFDL image and you want it taken down, we'll get back to you; otherwise, you might try minding your own business. --Ed Poor Talk 19:39, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

There is the general issue here of using material in violation of many different types of license. For example the Creative Commons Attribution and Share Alike licenses all require that acknowledgement of the author should be given in the manner specified. There are many images uploaded here that claim those licenses as justification for use but then do not attribute the original author on the pages of which they are displayed. Although I note that one editor (KTDiputsho) tried to remedy that in the past few days, they have since been blocked, thereby preventing them from continuing with their helpful good work, and that the poster of the comment above (KarenD) has also been blocked.
Conservapedia claims to be a conservative site with conservative values. So surely it is ironic, if not a tad hypocritical, that a site espousing the upholding of property rights should then dismiss the intellectual property rights of others. People are often willing to permit use of material if you ask in advance, but I have seen no evidence of images where permission has been sought and given for use. Surely this cannot be too difficult? For me Conservative values are things like courtesy, honesty, integrity, hard-work and self-reliance. So I am upset when those things are abandoned. Can we not put in a little hard work to seek the necessary permission, cannot more people supply their own photographs? Can we not be honest and respect the works of others?
I should emphasize that I am making no legal threats against Conservapedia, I and others like me, seek to help it by pointing out where usage is in error and thereby give you the opportunity to remedy it. However, when others have done this they have met with a hostile and defensive reaction. Hundreds of images here have been taken from sites where strict claims of copyright are published. Those sites do that for a reason - to protect their intellectual property rights. Do not the authors of images have the right to say how they wish them to be used and attributed?
From what I have seen it would appear that copying and plagiarism are almost actively encouraged here. For example, a recent article was posted here about UCLA. Several editors pointed out that it was copied directly from Wikipedia, right down to the wording and sequence of the references. This was not only against the house rules of Conservapedia but infringed the GFDL license. Instead of action being taken against the editor responsible, it was those who pointed out the plagiarism who were summarily given blocks by administrators here, apparently in defence of the transgressor. I can point to several other instances where that same editor has also submitted plagiarised articles and uploaded images wrongly attributed as public domain. However, I must admit that it was Mr. Poor, who finally saw good sense and eventually removed the offending article.
Fair use here seems to be a much abused term as the images are generally copied wholesale without any degradation of the original material. Then, by failing to identify elements within the image (or even a caption) and omitting to critique or comment on them within the text shows that they are being used for mere decoration rather than within the accepted definition of "Fair use". Even when an image may be appropriately termed fair use, it is surely common decency and good manners to attribute the images where they are actually displayed. However, compiling an encyclopedia with thousands of copyrighted images and claiming fair use for all of them would appear to really stretch the concept of fair use.
In general there appears to have been a singular lack of oversight on Conservapedia where copyright is concerned. It is extolled that US government sites are fair game for re-use of text and images as they are in the public domain - having been paid for by the US taxpayer. That is probably fair comment. However, if you read the terms of use on most of these sites, it explicitly states that not all images are the property of the government agency involved but are reproduced under license and therefore permission for use of any image should be sought before being reproduced elsewhere. As the uploading of images is a restricted right on Conservapedia, it behoves those privileged editors who do so to seek the necessary permission beforehand. Waiting for copyright owners to cry foul and request the withdrawal of images is analogous to taking goods from stores without paying, and then saying "OK you can have them back" when you are found out - but still keeping everything else. Not only is it intellectually dishonest but it is extremely discourteous to copy images without asking. These are both things which go against the very ethos of conservative values.
As for the GFDL license Mr. Poor let me refer you to the following explanation on the Free Software Foundation's website.
Recently we've been seeing a lot of questions about the FDL's requirements for different kinds of multimedia work. People will ask what they have to do when they use an FDLed image to illustrate an article, for example, or an FDLed song as part of a movie.
In cases like these where the materials complement each other, we believe that the end result is a derivative work. So, in the examples above, this means that you would need to follow the FDL's terms for creating modifications when you release your article or film. Just because the components can be separated doesn't necessarily mean that they're not derivative. For a long time we've held a similar position about copyright for software: just because a program only optionally makes use of GNU readline, for example, doesn't suddenly excuse the author from the GPL's requirements.
You are perfectly entitled to utilise GFDL images, but you are also obliged to apply the GFDL licence to any pages on which they are used as they have then become derivative works. As for people minding their own business Mr. Poor, I am sure you are aware of the parable of the Good Samaritan. What if he had minded his own business? What if you saw a robbery in your neighbourhood, would you call the police or mind your own business? I am sure your comment to KarenD was posted in anger as you felt Conservapedia was being challenged, perhaps rightly so. Despite that, I am particularly encouraged by the image and caption on your user page that you will respond in a fair way and encourage your fellow administrators to do likewise.
I am sure copyright issues are not unimportant to the project director here, especially in light of his recent deletions of images and request for public domain replacements. So I ferevently hope that the senior management here, will take these points on board and address the issues in an adult and reasonable manner rather than burying their head in the sand, issuing petulant blocks and deleting fair comment, after all this is the United States of America and not Communist China. Lobachevsky 15:16, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
The concept of fair use is well written up at Stanford University Copyright and Fair Use Centre which says:
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work.
and enlarges on the criteria thus:
Comment and Criticism
If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes.
and thus:
A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original.
So using an image just to add "eye candy" to a page is definitely in breach of fair use criteria. The fair use criteria require that the media itself be the subject of the comment or criticism, not merely an illustrative adjunct to the article. In the words of - "A Plagiarist is a thief". NadaBehziz 17:46, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
I should probably add that the U.S. Copyright Office gives the following advice:

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided...

Sage advice in my opinion. NadaBehziz 18:37, 22 April 2008 (EDT)


I have a request to update an image, we are the copyright holder of the image Image:Afghanistan_violence.jpg and would like to update the photo to include our logo rather than being the one stolen off of our website by someone other than us. Please contact me about how to make this happen. kxan 11:58, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

OK, I'll unprotect the image so that you can edit it, and also give you uploading authority so that you can upload a different version. Thanks for you cooperation.--Aschlafly 12:07, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

IUPAC / US / UK spelling of chemical element names[edit]

Please will you consider the names of the articles regarding Aluminium /Aluminum and Caesium / Cesium.

As I understand it the IUPAC / UK spellings are Caesium and Aluminium. The US spellings are Cesium and Aluminum. Conservapedia's articles are Cesium and Aluminium ie. they are inconsistent. Please will you decide which takes preference (ie. IUPAC or US spelling) in such cases. Please will you change the article name for the relevant article.

Many thanks. Barclay 18:46, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Ted Mosby[edit]

Thanks for banning that guy! I thought he'd never stop!
(Incidentally, you don't know how to make text purple, do you??) Jellyfish! 16:44, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Essay Length[edit]

Hey Mr. Schlafly. Are you going to continue to increase the word number in essays? :P ~BCSTalk2ME 10:24, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I should, don't you think, Bethany?--Aschlafly 10:25, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Definetely. ~BCSTalk2ME 10:29, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Leonard G.[edit]

Hi Mr. Schlafly. This is Leonard G. from class. I wanted to know if I could post pictures on the article I am still working on. You can view the article hear [[3]]

I'll give you uploading privileges now.--Aschlafly 19:49, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

City/town/county names as article titles[edit]

In case you don't check the manual of style talk page very often, I just wanted to draw your attention to a suggestion I had. Jinkas 21:04, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the alert. I respond there by endorsing your suggestion.--Aschlafly 21:32, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama's Foreign Policy Experience[edit]

You recently reverted a change I made to the Obama article (changing "no" executive, military, or foreign policy experience to "arguably little." The article has a section called "Foreign Policiy Experience. Now, the depth of that experience is questionable at best, it does exist, and declaring he has none makes the article contradict itself and lose a fair amount of credibility. May I suggest "hardly any?" If you want to keep the same amount of force, what about "laughably little?" All of these are better than the outright false statement that he has none.--SeanF 11:50, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Home Schooling[edit]

I was almost converted by your article on home schooling, till I heard the rumour that your children are not home schooled. Please confirm that this is not true and reinstate our faith in your principles. I cannot believe that you are a hypocrite like many of our politicians who do not practice what they preach. Please dispell our doubts. Thank you. --MReilly 14:45, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Wow, false rumors are even spreading outside the U.S.! (Note my spelling of "rumor" compared to yours.) Sorry you'll be missing out on the benefits of homeschooling, but that's what happens when gullible people believe false rumors. You did give me an idea for a new entry: liberal gullibility. Michael Moore makes a fortune off it.--Aschlafly 16:27, 25 April 2008 (EDT)


User:Atheist11 needs a longer block. Guard dog got him, which gave me time to clean up. Just thought I'd tell you. TechnoRB 18:17, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, I'll lengthen it now.--Aschlafly 18:22, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed's spring crop[edit]

Here are my latest articles: Unmarked, Y2K, Opposition to intelligent design, Science taboos, Homosexuality is a choice, Premise Media, Arpeggio, George Wald, George Gaylord Simpson, Evolution and atheism, Liberalism and atheism, Naturalism and science, Animals and people, Arguments about evolution, Development of homosexuality, Science and politics, Larry Witham, BET, Darwin-Hitler connection, Fairness, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Evolution and science, A Good Thief Tips His Hat, Nuclear family, Living wage, Ward Cunningham. --Ed Poor Talk 12:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Wow! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

small request regarding our great rise in the Alexa ranking[edit]

Andy, conservapedia's Alexa rank is climbing noticeably upwards and there is a noticeable lack of liberal community comment regarding this matter. In late December of 2007 our Alexa rank was about 90,000 and now our Alexa rank is nearly 40,000. Could you put a notice on the front page along with the appropriate graph? Plus a comment regarding the liberal community silence? Also, if you wanted for $19 you could have give a internet press release regarding this matter. Conservative 20:45, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks much, Conservative, but offhand I don't know how to do that. The idea of an internet press release sounds interesting. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:36, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

What's wrong with the photo?[edit]

Why did you take down the photo in the 2008 Election article of all the Republican Presidential candidates together in the section on the Republican primary? You just said that it's not needed. Why? It's completely relevant to the article. Chippeterson April 25, 2008 11:39PM

Username change[edit]

Hi could i get a name change please. --Realist2 23:32, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

(deleted liberal claptrap - we respect user talk pages here, unlike Wikipedia)


Aschlafly, I recently received a block but when I tried to contact the person who blocked me found that they had disabled their e-mail. How can I possibly discuss the circumstances of my block if the sysop has either disabled their email or not provided one? I apologize for creating a new account but what alternative do I have? I do hope you can remedy this contradiction. ArtDunby 15:59, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

You have to provide more information. What was the reason for the block? What was your blocked id name? How long was the block. No one can help without more information.--Aschlafly 17:17, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, I'm not appealing to you against the block, that would usurp the authority of the sysop who made it. What I would like to know is why sysops are allowed to disable their email so that people cannot appeal against a block. The only solution is to create another account - in spite of what the log in page says. Surely this cannot be right? Anyone with the power to block should be open to communication. There are at least three (maybe more) sysops here, or people with blocking rights, who have disabled their email. ArtDunby 17:46, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
ArtDunby, I doubt anyone intentionally disabled their email. Often servers block emails when the volume is high, which was probably the case. Regardless, cut to the chase, and state your case here or move on.--Aschlafly 18:00, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
fyi, Karajou's email capabilities are, and have been for some time if not for the entirety of his time here, disabled. It has been mentioned many times, fitting considering his active nature. You've likely been busy with more weighty matters but, well, there you have it. Aziraphale 18:09, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Finding I can once again log in... The following people with the ability to block do not have email active:

This is not to say that other people may have email active but have the email going to an unwatched email account. --Rutm 18:23, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you Rutm. It is not an issue of servers blocking emails when volume is high the message specifically states:
"This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users."
And the sysop in question was HenryS who formerly did have a valid email address. ArtDunby 18:35, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure that Karajou has said before that he has not been able to get his e-mail to work. Why, I don't know, and can't help suspecting that he's overlooked something quite simple, but I'll believe that he's telling the truth, and it's not an attempt to prevent e-mails.

I was aware of one other sysop not having active e-mail, but for legitimate personal reasons. I would have thought that the rest were all okay, so I'm a bit surprised with the size of that list above. However, I will also point out that several on that list have not been active anyway, so there should be little need to contact them. That still leaves a reasonable number who do have working e-mails. Perhaps Conservapedia:Editor's guide#If you get blocked should list administrators with working e-mails? No, perhaps not. That's eight out of around 30 administrators who are not contactable this way, and of those eight perhaps half have little need to be contacted. Also, there are the users with blocking rights that we'd also have to include.

What is of concern is that CPWebmaster's e-mail is apparently not working (and not just the 'e-mail this user' link). That one should be at the very least.

Philip J. Rayment 05:37, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

So, here is a list of how active those users are with blocking:
An email account at gmail, yahoo, or hotmail is not difficult to set up, works quite well, and also nicely disposable if you get harassing emails from someone.
Here is a list of the users above who have blocking permissions, who do not have email active, and when the last time they blocked someone. Far be it for me to presume, but since sysops have been removed for being inactive for a month before, cleaning up the permissions for those who haven't used administrative abilities for over a year might be a good idea (and not just those who don't have working email).
Most sysops seem to be rather hesitant about undoing another sysop's block for whatever reason. For the sysops without working email, if someone was to go to the list of administrators and start trying to contact them only to have them be inactive (as you note a fair number of sysops are not active).
Just a quick look at the last 500 blocks and who did them:
  • 92 DeanS (18.4%)
  • 91 Karajou (18.2%)
  • 63 DanH (12.6%)
  • 59 Ed Poor (11.8%)
  • 44 Aschlafly (8.8%)
  • 33 TerryH (6.6%)
  • 31 HenryS (6.2%)
  • 22 Philip J. Rayment (4.4%)
  • 14 Kektklik (2.8%)
  • 12 Jallen (2.4%)
  • 11 Jinkas (2.2%)
  • 9 Learn together (1.8%)
  • 8 BrianCo (1.6%)
  • 4 Joaquín Martínez (0.8%)
  • 4 Conservative (0.8%)
  • 3 BethanyS (0.6%)
Adding those up, 30% of the last 500 blocks are done by a sysop without active email. Slightly more if you consider that Conservative didn't have an active email until my post yesterday. I am certain that if you were to start going through Special:Ipblocklist you would find the percentage of sysops without an active email blocking to be higher.
So, going through the 'what to do if you get blocked':
  1. Contact blocking sysop (30% of not an active account). Also note that myself, having previously been blocked by TK and given his conduct I really didn't want to do that.
  2. Contact another administrator. As I mentioned, many sysops are hesitant to undo another's block. Others don't have email active. Others aren't active. If you want to, I could go through the list of Administrators, Siteadmins, and users with block permission and find how many edits in the last 30 days they have done as a gauge of activity.
  3. Contact CPWebmaster via email (because it isn't active on the email this user page) to have it forwarded back to the original blocking sysop. If CPWebmaster's email is working and is checked regularly, this would presumably be forwarded back to the original blocking sysop's email... from the 'email this user' page, which brings us back to the original problem of the original blocking sysop's email isn't active.
This all assumes that the block didn't also block the email too (as I understand it, it is an option prevents a person from being able to access the email this user functionality) in which case the only way to protest the block is to try email Aschlafly directly, though that isn't part of the published way to appeal. --Rutm 14:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
What's your point? If you are blocked unfairly (which may happen in 1 out of 50 cases) and you are unable to appeal, then simply email me: --Ed Poor Talk 18:44, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Changing an artical[edit]

Can you please change the name of the artical "Finding A Topic" to "Essay:Finding A Topic". I would geatly apprechiate that. --Rocky

Done. Jallen 20:50, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Thanks --Rocky

Aschlafly, I noticed that you are a teacher. I was wondering if you could read an essay that I wrote and tell me what you think of it. I would be greatly appreciative of it. Click here to go. Thanks. --Rocky

It wasn't the real Crocoite[edit]

It wasn't the real Crocoite. If you look at the specific contributions of the "Crocoite" who posted "I quit", there were only four posts. Whoever did it was using different letters. I remember when somebody did that to impersonate you and Conservative. DanH 18:51, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Also, see that somebody just recently signed up with the "name" Crocoite. DanH 18:52, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the clarification Dan. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 19:27, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Second generation atheist[edit]

Why did you remove the perfectly factual information that I included in that article? Why does your Google search only return 70 results while mine returns 755? --ElizabethR 19:18, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Are you using quotes in your search? You should.--Aschlafly 19:49, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I am. As follows: "second generation atheist". Also, why did you remove the second generation Christian comparison? I saw that you yourself had made the comparison on the talk page. --ElizabethR 19:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
I just did that search and Google found only 64. It's a term used by atheists; "second generation Christian" is not a term used by Christians. More to the point, can you cite achievements by second generation atheists?--Aschlafly 20:05, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Here is the search result:
I got the term "second generation Christian" from the following exchange on the talk page:
Your point being, presumably, that because it is a term nobody uses it must mean that so-called second generation atheists are not doing notable things in the world. Genius. --GDewey 00:11, 26 February 2008 (EST)
No, you're clueless. The term is used, as in "second generation Christian." But when the set of accomplished subjects is virtually the null set, as in second generation atheists, very little shows up.--Aschlafly 00:12, 26 February 2008 (EST)
I took it from your post that the term "second generation Christian" was a term in current use.
Finally, it is not "more to the point" for me to list achievements of "second generation atheists". I am not asserting that they are a productive group. I was merely drawing a comparison (already made by yourself on the talk page) and stating the obvious conclusion according to the criteria in the article (ie Google hits = productivity and success within society). Was I wrong? --ElizabethR 20:22, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Just to mention: I'm getting 782 here, for "second generation atheist". 2,160 for "second generation christian". Google results, in fact, are different for everyone. Perhaps in light of these discrepencies... Google might not be quite the best method of evaluating the success or popularity of an ideology? Feebasfactor 20:28, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Nevertheless, I feel that "second generation atheist" is a perceptive term in this case - just like "Affirmative Action President" - and so deserves an article. Mostly likely other citations of some sort can be found anyway, right? Feebasfactor 20:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
I posted on the article's talk page back in February that I got 899 hits for "second generation atheist", but 98 hits for "second generation atheists", which was the term used in the article at the time in reference to the Google hits. Philip J. Rayment 05:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
763 vs 2150. Also most of the sites which come up are blogs or recounts of what a few people describes themselves as, rather than showing that its a commonly used term. I think we need to find other terms for second generation atheists before making generalisations. StatsMsn 20:41, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Aw, I thought it was another Conservapedia term... Oh well, if only a few people use it, we're probably still the only site with an article on it! :) Feebasfactor 21:12, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Campus Crusade for Christ reports the following: "In a study listed in Who's Who in Who's Who, it took 5,000 Presbyterian ministers to produce one child listed in Who's Who. Among lawyers the ratio was 5,000 to 1; dentists 2,500 to 1. But for every seven Christian missionary families from the United States, one of their children would be listed in Who's Who." [6] Conservative 20:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Said study fails to take into account various circumstances. First, missionaries have held high positions in past society whereas atheists have not, therefore their achievements are more likely to be recognised. Secondly the children of missionaries would often have a greater chance to become successful due to the socioeconomic and educational aspects of their location, whereas others would not be so easily able to start a movement or distinguish themselves from their immediate peers. Also there's the slight problem that the study fails to mention atheists, what if their contribution was greater than 5000:1 and therefore ranks them above Presbyterian ministers? StatsMsn 20:41, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

yes, Who's Who being the benchmark by which all of Mortal Man must be judged? Anyways, one reason for second-generation atheists being low achieving is that most of them are probably in their early-to-mid-twenties. Atheism in America, as a more mainstream culture, is relatively new. With a minuscule, young sample size, is this any surprise that there aren't many huge blow-out successes? It'd be rather like querying "second generation fans of Star Trek: The Next Generation." There... aren't many.-Publius 20:40, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, missionary families have much more educational opportunities than lawyer and dentist families.(sarcasm). Conservative 21:16, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
I didn't say that, I said they have greater chance of success due to the educational aspects of their location. In other words, if they have a much higher level of education than most of those around them (which is true in many countries where missionaries are located) then they have more chance of becoming successful than someone whose education is equivilent to that of his or her peers. For instance, a science student with a weak understanding of water purification techniques in a country suffering from water shortages is more likely to become recognised than a rocket scientist competing with many others in America. StatsMsn 21:23, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
StatsMsn, I don't see why a missionary in a third world country would go way out of their way to put their kids in Who's Who. It appears as if returning missionaries to the USA or missionaries who for a time come back to the USA have kids who wind up in Who's Who. Here is the entire context: "Healthy MKs also represent a powerhouse potential for future missions. According to a recent study of adult MKs, 15 to 20 percent return to the mission field as missionaries. Those who don't return tend to find success in other areas of life. In a study listed in Who's Who in Who's Who, it took 5,000 Presbyterian ministers to produce one child listed in Who's Who. Among lawyers the ratio was 5,000 to 1; dentists 2,500 to 1. But for every seven Christian missionary families from the United States, one of their children would be listed in Who's Who."[7] Conservative 21:35, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Conservative, you seem to have talked past most of StatsMsn's points, and my points as well. I have a very important message for you: citing your arguments to off-CP webpages does not make your arguments, in themselves, true.-Publius 22:00, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
I never said the missionary would go out of their way to put their kid in Who's Who, I said that the circumstances would provide a natural advantage. The full paragraph you stated does not say anything about returning missionaries making their way onto the Who's Who list, it just says the children of missionaries in general. It would be better if we had access to the actual study, rather than relying on secondary sources.
I will also remind you that the number of missionaries is small compared to the number of Christians in general. Presbyterian ministers only managed a rate of 5000 to 1, what happens if the proportion of children from atheists families is more favourable (say, 2500 to 1)? StatsMsn 22:08, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Statsman, now I know why the conservapedia atheism article mentions moral depravity as a cause for atheism. It appears as if atheists can ignore the obvious quite readily as can be seen by your "analysis" of why missionary families appear to be quite healthy and produce accomplished children. Conservative 22:22, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry, how am I ignoring the obvious? It was YOU who ignored two thirds of my arguments, and has failed to consider what happens if a greater proportion of atheists families have produced children on the Who's Who list than families led by Presbyterian ministers. It's nice that children of Christian missionaries have been successful, but this is surely not the foundations of your argument? StatsMsn 22:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Your attempted explantion for why MKs do better appears to be just a case of trying to explain away the point being made whilst tacitly conceding it, and appears to presume that said MK's get into an American Who's Who on the basis of their achievements in the mission country. That in itself seems unlikely, and I also doubt that many MKs actually do end up doing significant secular things in the mission country. Rather, they would normally return to their parent country, or (less likely) stay in the mission country as a missionary. Philip J. Rayment 05:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
I wasn't really attempting to provide an explanation, rather suggest some possibilities. Unless we can get our hands on the study (which I don't think is very likely) then we will never be able to know the truth. My main concern is the generalisations which Conservative seems to be making or at least implying (that MKs are successful because of their faith, that atheists must not be successful because they weren't examined in a study). Sadly he doesn't seem to wish to argue one of the main points of my argument (that the proportion of children from atheists families may be higher than the families of Presbyterian ministers) and therefore I don't think this discussion will go very far. StatsMsn 07:33, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Bold question[edit]

Is it okay if I continue to bold court cases or would it just be redundant to have bold italics? o_0 Kektk 21:32, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

The bolding looks great!--Aschlafly 21:54, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

I guess I am..[edit]

Looked over both articles, along with a few outside sources, and I seem to agree more with Young Earth. My English composition class is canceled tomorrow; I will see you for class if you don't mind me attending/distracting a particular person. -^_^- Kektk 15:30, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Category:Novels vs. Category:Books[edit]

Many novels are listed in Category:Books, however there is no overlap between these two. I figured that, before I undertook the task of reclassifying them, I should ask what course of action is appropriate here. After all, entirely arbitrary divisions can't help the wiki. IndianaJ 10:13, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Drat, drat, and double drat![edit]

AH! I almost catch that retarded[8] and revert it! (I hoping getting that hammer award someday......). By the way, you fast! I just saw that vandal, then sign in right away, and then I about to undo, but you delete before I got there. Don't work too hard!

I don't want this entry become a spam, so I was wonder: How do you revert, is it copy and paste or undo button in history section? And is it okay to add like "User talk:TagoPagdaluhong/sandbox"?

Sorry for my english grammar, if I made error. --TagoPagdaluhong 11:43, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

False Accusations[edit]

*This is a request to the site superadmin, please stop deleting it. It is not offensive or rude or vandalism* User RobbieFowler added this to a page: "The University of Bridgeport is a private university in Bridgeport, Connecticut, located in South Bridgeport on Long Island Sound. The university was taken over in 1992 by the Professors World Peace Academy, part of the Unification Church. Its current president is Neil Albert Salonen." Ed Poor has deleted the entire page claiming it is plagiarized from here. The only reference to the university on that page states: "Before her new federal job, Hauer was the director of marriage education at the University of Bridgeport in Bridgeport, Conn. That school was taken over in 1992 by the Professors world Peace Academy, a Moon-affiliated group, and its current president, Neil Salonen, is a former president of the Unification Church in America. After less than three days, attendees of the Sept. 23-25 seminar in Oakland were awarded a "Certified Marriage education Professional Document of Completion," issued by Moon's University of Bridgeport. "Sixteen hours of training won't make you the best marriage educator," Hauer told her students. "But it takes all kinds of work to save marriage - people to run the sound system, write the press releases."

Can you please look into this and show where the plagiarism is?? SangioveseDiRomagna 15:25, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

No. When making an appeal the burden of proof is on you. Supply your references, or don't come back. --Ed Poor Talk 18:46, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
I shouldn't lose sleep over it, Ed - Rachel/Sangiovese emailed our discussion group to say that she couldn't believe how determined you were to prevent Unification Church edits being made, so I have already advised her to quit attacking the project and not to stir up further trouble by trying to make them. I doubt she will trouble you any more. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 18:53, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Thank you for apologizing on her behalf. Confession is good for the soul. Now that you or she has admitted that the contribs were intended to hurt the project, I can forgive you - based on your promise not to do it any more.
Facts about any relevant topic are always appreciated, but plagiarism is not allowed. I think you know already that you must provide sources for information that you copy - especially if you are rewording it. Plagiarism by rewording someone else's work is still plagiarism and violates the "promise to us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it".
Unsubstantiated allegations are okay, on debate pages - just about anything goes there besides personal attacks of course.
In articles, however, if you intend to present only one side of a story you better suggest it on the talk page first. Especially when a sysop deletes information he knows is false. If you have "inside information" that you can't reveal, you can always start a blog, but this is an encyclopedia and we have certain standards. If you want to comply with them, then a brilliant hard-working writer will be welcome here. If you have an axe to grind, however, go sharpen it somewhere else. --Ed Poor Talk 11:55, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
What about us not-so-brilliant writers, who misplace prepositions and suchlike? Are we welcome too? --wikinterpreter Modspeed!
The misplacing of prepositions is a type of effrontery up with which I will not put! ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 12:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
You do realise that Churchill was taking the mick out someone when he said "This is the sort of English, with which I shall not put", right? Chappers 12:51, 3 May 2008 (EDT)Sorry, meant to say someone who was refusing to put prepositions at end of sentences even when they weren't prepositions, such as 'up' and 'with' in that quote. Chappers 12:57, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Well then Ed, I have no choice but to make a satirical sister wiki to CP, whose sole purpose is to analyse and refute the anti-illiteracy movement! How do you like that?! --wikinterpreter Modspeed!


Hello Andy, I was wondering how many edits/contribs I need to get to have the right to upload images (if any). anthing you can tell me would help. --ITSAMEMARIO 21:32, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

There isn't a definitive number of edits you need to gain upload rights, however you should work more to make edits in the mainspace rather than user and talk pages. Most of your edits have been talk, so you've got a while to go yet. Jallen 00:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I have been trying to add more to the site, but allot of my edits where talk, because I didn't know how to use the wiki formatting, so I just asked around! :P--ITSAMEMARIO 09:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
If there is an image on the interweb that you would like to appear here then try asking on Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests. If there are are personal photographs that you would like to submit then email a sysop or someone with image upload rights (such as me) and they can upload them for you if they are acceptable. BrianCo 15:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)


I have been here a while and done 3282 edits on 1966 unique pages created maybe 200 or so articles, uploaded some pictures, reported vandals, can I become an admin -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

You'd probably be better going after edit, upload and block rights. Jallen 00:20, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

I also need to be able to delete nonsense pages which vandals make I have caught some of those in past also

Moving is also something I need, I often seen inconsistency on the titling of related articles

for example calling a biblical book Book of Exodus, and another

Biblical book Jonah (Biblical book)

Deletion of categories would be helpful because I often have to move whole categories because they are not following the rules by not being capitalized

-- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, I think "we" must distinguish between the words "need" and "want". You want these rights, you don't need them. You can just as easily point out to a sysop, "Hey, would you mind deleting/moving page 'such and such'?" Also, it seems EdBot handles most of the category moving.
Then again, you can take me as a fool for trying to have you understand since I have a few more rights. (Let me know if I'm not making any sense; I just woke up) +_+ Kektk 13:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)


I can't believe that you're brushing that under the carpet. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 18:22, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

After what you posted on rat wiki, you're lucky to be allowed to post here at all. I just have a soft spot in my heart for fellow Jews, I guess. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 18:48, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Animal Terms N[edit]

Should Neanderthal be put on Animal Terms N? -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Neanderthals were humans, so I'd say no. Philip J. Rayment 02:45, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, Neanderthals should still be on the list somewhere, maybe in a sub-category?--ITSAMEMARIO 17:34, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps Animal Terms should be changed to Living Organisms Terms -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

As requested[edit]

You requested I discuss changes on the talk page (see liberal gullibility) so please answer. AdenJ 23:54, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Uploading Images[edit]

Hi. I realise I have not been editing here long enough to even consider applying for adminship, however I am finding the inability to upload photos quite a hindrance. Is is possible to have that ability added to my account? Thankyou. (I originally posted this to user:Admin, but I notice he has not been online in quite some time.) --Hayden5650 09:44, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

You have to tell us what you want to upload. Be specific. Thanks.--Aschlafly 09:45, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly. I gave Hayden5650 a three day block for uploading articles copied directly from wikipedia. He had been warned previously by PJR about this, so I would be wary of giving him image upload rights. BrianCo 15:30, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Reverted edits[edit]

Since you've neglected to answer me on my talk page, I'm forced to repeat myself here. What was wrong with my edits? While we're at it, I'd appreciate an answer to my question about novels and books. I can't do anything about it until I get an answer. IndianaJ 00:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)


Please review this user's edits, Andrew? 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Forget reviewing them, block the guy. He just declared that he was a parodist. --transResident Transfanform! 15:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Maybe you should block this guy too. --S₮ёVeN 15:44, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I did. Thanks.--Aschlafly 15:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Public schools/deceit[edit]

Hi there, just wanted to direct your attention to the talk page on deceit. [[9]] There's been quite a bit of discussion, and it's felt that the phrase "public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong" should not remain without substantive evidence. I see you recently reverted a deletion of the phrase, so you've 'entered the fray', so to speak. See you on the Talk page. :D Underscoreb 17:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Hi there Aschlafy, just a reminder that you're requested on the Deceit talk page. [[10]]Underscoreb 18:56, 6 May 2008 (EDT)


Please block, User:Lib1089 -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Done. Thanks for the alert. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 18:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Block rights[edit]

Can I have blocking rights -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Can I have blocking rights-- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I need to save my version of the Atheism article (I got rid of misspellings and condensed refs using ref names) to the main Atheism article, can you unlock the Atheism article, for a minute or so -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

It looks good for blocking rights, pending feedback by other Sysops. As to the atheism article, please ask the Sysop who's been working on it and locked it. That is not I. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:39, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
(I'm not a sysop) I figure, Deborah has more edits than I do. And I have block rights. Deborah should have block rights, eh? -^_^- Kektk 21:46, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, so much-- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

No Way![edit]

We don't have an article for Charles Haddon Spurgeon on this site??!!?? I'll make it right now!!--S₮ёVeN 10:11, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Who is that? I suppose I'll find out soon from your work!--Aschlafly 10:18, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Wha..? You don't/didn't know who Spurgeon was? I guess that means you're not a Baptist!
Good article StevenM, and the others who contributed. You might want to create/fix links where he is mentioned in other articles[11]. (Or I might, but I don't have time just now.) Philip J. Rayment 23:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Added a redirect to the real article. That should suffice. Hungry, stressed, hoping and tired +_+ Kektk 23:17, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
That only fixed one, but another already had a link to a redirect to it, and I've fixed two more. The only one I didn't do was where he was mentioned in a footnote reference. Philip J. Rayment 06:29, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I forgot how to[edit]

Upload [12] this file, please. I think I lost my upload rights when I got fireFox. --S₮ёVeN 12:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Note, file name to be saved as - Image:Spurgeon.png 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 12:04, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

StevenM, you have upload rights. You don't lose them by converting to Firefox. (I use Firefox, and like it much better, by the way.) Also, I just gave you blocking rights, StevenM, which you deserve!--Aschlafly 12:10, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Whoa, thanks. I really don't know what else to say.--S₮ёVeN 12:18, 6 May 2008 (EDT)  :-)


I forgot to revert the vandalism accidently -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)


Thanks, I won't abuse it. I appreciate the show of trust. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 12:14, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Categories that need to be deleted[edit]

[[:Category:Domestic animals|Domestic animals]] [[:Category:Book of Esther persons|Book of Esther persons]] [[:Category:US Governors|US Governors]] [[:Category:Hoofed mammals|Hoofed mammals]] [[:Category:Homeschooled persons|Homeschooled persons]] [[:Category:Homeschooling curriculum|Homeschooling curriculum]] [[:Category:Homeschool curriculum|Homeschool curriculum]] [[:Category:Home school curriculum|Home school curriculum]] [[:Category:French Citizens|French Citizens]] [[:Category:Christian movements|Christian movements]]

-- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

THese are all duplicates of already used categories -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Richard Dawkins[edit]

Dear Aschlafly,

I should explain. I am an employee of a central department of Oxford University, and also hold an Oxford degree. My edit about the status of professorships at UK Universities and Oxford is correct, and entirely consistent with the evidence cited on the Richard Dawkins talk page (which includes links to the Oxford University Gazette, the University's internal newspaper, citing Prof. Dawkins' credentials).

May I ask - what qualifies you with reference to the structure of the academic faculties of Oxford University and its colleges?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oxymoron1985 (talk)

Dear Aschlafly,

Thanks for your feedback about Oxford University. If you like, you can reach me at my Oxford University email address: I trust you will find this to be sufficient evidence of the fact that I am a member of staff at Oxford.

With reference to my edit, I'd like to hear you give an account for the merits of the version to which the article has been reverted over the version I supplied.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oxymoron1985 (talk)

Please respond - I'm keen to enter a discussion with you about why you think my edit was wrong. Oxymoron1985 10:44, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Appalling Hollywood values Article[edit]

This article is appalling, un-Christian, and just downright mean. According to this article, "Hollywood values" are responsible for ALL deaths in Hollywood. For example: Sharon Tate was brutally murdered by a bunch of crazy people. That's NOT her fault.

This article is just another example of Conservapedia's failure.

Now you're probably going to accuse me of "liberal denial" or some other nonsense. Go ahead.--Pineapple10 13:11, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

"Pineapple", you obviously miss the point. If we had an entry about drunk driving that included its harm, would you object to listing victims who were not themselves drunk?--Aschlafly 08:05, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
At this point, as I see it, both arguments have merit, however, to use Aschlafly's analogy, there would be a difference between listing drunk drivers who caused accidents and innocent victims under the same heading - would it be fair to the innocent victims to be lumped in with drunk drivers? I suppose in this case (again to use the analogy) Sharon Tate could be compared to somebody who willingly climbs into the passenger seat of a drunk driver and then gets killed in an accident. Marvin Gaye would probably be another similar example, as he was murdered by his father. JessicaT 08:44, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Exciting news in regards to Conservapedia's atheism article!!!!![edit]

Andy, I just found out some exciting news in regards to conservapedia's atheism article. The news is far more exciting than anything I have ever shared on the main page. Please look forward to having a Google top 10 and likely a Google top 5 atheism article. By the way, an Ivy League theology professor was asked by another man who holds a doctorate degree in theology to examine Conservapedia's atheism article. The Ivy League theology professor liked the conservapedia atheism article very much! Conservative 01:25, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Great news!--Aschlafly 08:04, 9 May 2008 (EDT)


I have a question Mr. Schlafy! So, on the Uncyclopedia article's talk page it was said in regards to that site that just because a site is open to everyone doesn't mean it's not biased. Of course that's true- I agree that mostly young people like myself enjoy Uncyclopedia, and since people do tend to be more liberal when they're young, the site therefore picks up a liberal bias.

But, in regards to this site, aren't there obviously many more conservative contributors? Please explain to me why this doesn't create a bias here. Thanks! Rockthecasbah 22:44, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Nice trick: bury a liberal assumption into a question to make it appear to be true. People do not tend to be more liberal when they are young with respect to key issues like abortion and religion. It's through liberal indoctrination of teenagers and college students, and the impact of the culture, that turns some of them into liberals on those issues.
Uncyclopedia lacks the simple rules that we have here to curb bias, just as society has laws to prevent mob rule and the biases that result from that.--Aschlafly 23:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
I wasn't trying to be tricky... that "liberal assumption" was in fact stated on that same talk page by someone who may even have been a sysop. And that doesn't even matter to my question. We have rules to curb bias- that's all I needed. Makes sense. No need to be rude. Rockthecasbah 20:02, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
OK, fair enough. When there are no rules to curb bias, what happens is a lynch mob. Or short of that, once one side gains a majority, it quickly drives out the minority and the majority then dominates even more. That's why democracies have constitutions to prevent the inevitable bias and tyranny.--Aschlafly 20:17, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Why the Revert, Aschlafly?[edit]

So, Aschlafly, you reverted my edit on the Junkie page with no explaination. I told you that the source that was cited there mentions *nothing* about the word "Junkie". Thats why I removed it. So what's the reason for your revert? Dinkytown 23:47, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Page protection of Gay[edit]

Please can you unprotect Gay? I want to substantially rewrite it (at the moment it's a stub, very one-sided, and entirely lacking in sources). Alternatively, if you're concerned about vandalism, I can draft a new version in my userspace and you can then copy it into the article. Walton One 12:40, 10 May 2008 (EDT)


Andy, Could you please protect: YourPublicDomain familyscenes&babies.jpg? It is in the Main Page.

For some reason I can't. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Joaquin, I can't protect it either. The "&" in the name is causing the difficulty. The image has to be uploaded to a name that does not have an "&". For example, you could spell that out as "and". Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:35, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
New version uploaded Image:YourPublicDomain_familyscenesandbabies.jpg without the ampersand. I've tagged the old one with "speedy" to make it easier to access and delete. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 09:42, 10 May 2008 (EDT) Use the "diff" button to access it, and the "delete" tab option (iirc) will appear for sysops. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 09:47, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Deleted the old image. Thanks Fox for uploading the new image and the instructions on how to delete the old one. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 10:03, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Thanks to both Fox and Dean!--Aschlafly 10:05, 10 May 2008 (EDT)


Hello Mr Aschlafly, its nice to see a place i can work, in peace, away from bias and lies. Thankyou for having the courage to set up this place. Could you possibly direct me to conservapedias rules/policies. I want to make a good impression, wouldnt want to make unnessary mistakes. I would also love to hear your own thought on conservitism so if you have the time i would be very greatful. Have a great day, god bless. --Reallife 22:51, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Welcome to you. We keep our rules as simple as possible. Enjoy and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:54, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Thankyou, nice and easy indeed. God bless.--Reallife 22:58, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
I've put a welcome box with further links to rules, etc., on his talk page. Philip J. Rayment 23:00, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Oh please, feel free to call me Reallife, its a name i hope you all come to respect. Thankyou. --Reallife 23:04, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

AFD: Engrish[edit]

Hi. I recently put in a request for a page I feel is offensive to be deleted (Engrish). I'm not sure if anybody has noticed yet, but I wonder if you could have a look at my request please, when you have a moment. Thanks in advance. --JessicaTOhayo gozaimasu! 01:01, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree it should be deleted. I've never heard of the derogatory term. If no one else has an opinion otherwise let's delete it later today.--Aschlafly 08:55, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Thank you! Or to be more formal *bow* arigatou gozaimasu! --JessicaTOhayo gozaimasu! 09:59, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
When the concerns with the article were pointed out to its creator, he expressed his sorrow over making the article and also asked for its deletion. Thank you for pointing it out to us. Learn together 19:40, 15 May 2008 (EDT)


Andrew, please would you take a look at my last version of the a/m article, and then revert the butchery that has been carried out to it. How are people supposed to produce competent, accurate articles when this kind of thing goes on? 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 17:37, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Address the date claims, a favorite hoax promoted by advocates of the theory of evolution.--Aschlafly 19:45, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Going through the history, Fox originally put in the 17,000-year, etc. dates, but later qualified them by saying things like "believed by archaeologists to be...". Joaquin, not liking Fox removing a picture of a non-painting on the grounds that it wasn't a painting, did a wholesale reversion of Fox's last series of edits, thereby removing the qualification that Fox had added. Joaquin also protected the article, thereby preventing Fox from fixing the date claims. Philip J. Rayment 22:47, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
As Philip pointed out, I had already addressed the dating issue. Is nobody going to address the far more obvious garbage that Joaquin has added? 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 04:58, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I meant to say (I) "addressed the date claims," which has a completely different meaning from what I mistakenly wrote, "address the date claims." But that said, I'm not persuaded the date claims had been adequately addressed. Moreover, those cave paintings look like obvious hoaxes and I'm not sure why they would even be in the entry in the first place.--Aschlafly 10:17, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
So you think that its okay to have random unrelated quotes thrown in to the article, and illustrate it with photographs of things that even their creators say are not "paintings"? Fine, keep the article as it is. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 10:23, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

atheism article[edit]

Andy, the atheism article may be getting about 2,000 views a day. I am working to fulfill a contract today but I hope to get in touch with you possibly tonight or tomorrow regarding how to get substantial more web traffic for the article. Dean/Crocoite seemed interest in getting more webtraffic to the article and hopefully he will see this posting and email me regarding any ideas he might have or ideas that I could give him to run with. Conservative 18:31, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

atheism article - article of the year[edit]

Andy, I vetted the atheism article in regards to it being the article of the year. There appears to be support for the idea and no stated opposition to the idea. I believe the article of the year should be below the Masterpiece of the Week. In the past you have talked about placement bias (material being high or low on webpage) getting more attention and there appears to be much support for this article at the present time given the release of the movie Expelled so I am suggesting that the article of the year be below the Masterpiece of the Week. Conservative 18:42, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

So... You just decided to make your pet article the article of the year? Which year btw? Just decided to make it this years article in advance or last years article 5 months late? What other articles where nominated, and who where the ones supporting atheism for the article of the year title? EmilyL 19:02, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
It's not particularly his pet article. He just feeds it and brushes its coat. The rest of us take turns exercising it and teaching it new tricks. ;-0 --Ed Poor Talk 19:52, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Watch "my pet article" become a pitbull that helps gobble up the dead corpse of atheism on the internet. :) By the way, I just talked to a director of operations for an organization that is known for its decidedly anti-atheism position. Conservative 21:08, 15 May 2008 (EDT)