User talk:Aschlafly/Archive47

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Liberal vandals on your site

they created a hidden page insulting Conservapedia and you! i found it when my liberal son in law left it up on my computer. I was furious and came to tell you immeadeatly! here's the link: Conzervative1 13:15, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Thanks, I have blanked the revision. --Jpatt 13:36, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
I took a screen shot for Andrew Schlafly if he wants to look at it, so if he does he should let me know.

Conzervative1 13:46, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

found another: Conzervative1 17:18, 8 May 2011 (EDT)


Where is the button to remove the stupid pages vandals create? Nate 17:45, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

It's available to users who acquire extra privileges based on merit.--Andy Schlafly 00:06, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Delete a page

Andy could you delete Cherringtonshire - it appears to be a fake town.--IDuan 21:52, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

Done. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 00:06, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

GHHJ vandal

User GHHJ has been vandalizing pages under the guise of copy editing. BradB 23:45, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

Great catch. That user is blocked now.--Andy Schlafly 00:06, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

More deletions

Andy could you check the recent changes? There are two pages (with vulgar names) that need deleting - I added a delete tag on both; they were created very recently--IDuan 12:05, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Deleted them. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 16:45, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Can you check this?

I see you have been working on this page so can you please check my edit here? I don't like my wording so much and unsure if I get the point across correctly. Thanks Andy. MaxFletcher 16:17, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

I already saw it. It looks like a great start to making an important point. Well done!--Andy Schlafly 16:44, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
Thank you, Andy. MaxFletcher 16:49, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Monty Python

Hey, the monty python page has a link for Terry Jones, but the page it is linking to isn't actually about the Terry Jones from monty python but is instead about the Pastor, Terry Jones. If I wanted to create a page for Terry Jones the comedian, what name should I give the article? BobO 20:20, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

How about Terry Jones, the comedian?--Andy Schlafly 21:20, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
Or Terry Jones (comedian). MaxFletcher 21:40, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
Or possibly Terry Jones of Monty Python MikeOxlong 18:41, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
It would have to be something like Terry Jones (comedian), as this man has done other work not related to Monty Python. Karajou 18:51, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
Or we could use one of our handy disambiguation pages. Martyp 19:08, 21 March 2011 (EDT)


Please look at the edits of GuyMarsden I think he might be a vandal. I have reverted some. Gerrard 12:47, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

John 4:53

  • I explained here again how John 4:53 is not one of the Counterexamples to Relativity.
  • I adjusted the count of Counterexamples to Relativity.
  • you wrote But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is action at a distance in the Bible. If you can find a verse where action at a distance is described in the Bible, I'd like to read it.

AugustO 12:48, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

August (the same name as my great-grandfather, though my guess is that his real name was the Christian form, "Augustine"), I urge you to take our test on openmindedness. The plain meaning of the biblical passage, in my humble opinion, is that the event occurred at the same moment.
You ask for another example. Here's one: Matthew 27:51 (our modern translation should be improved to express how it happened at the same moment).--Andy Schlafly 16:23, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
The name August was certainly more popular in your great-grandfather's time than it is today. In the German speaking countries, you will find August much more often than Augustin (which is the more popular surname, though). I'm always glad to here about another August(in)!
As for Matthew 27:51: it isn't clear at all whether these events happened at the same time or in rapid succession. At least it seems that the verse Matthew 27:50 indicates that Jesus cried out before He released His spirit.
I'm interested in you input on Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53 and Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#John_4:53. I hope I made it clear how John 4:53 isn't an example for an action-at-a-distance, and I'd like to strike it from the list of counterexamples (again).
AugustO 13:00, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the unblock. As I said elsewhere: The idea of two events of infinitesimal duration happening at the same point in time is a new notion, introduced by the CBP. IMO, it's a mistaken idea - and I will try to elaborate my thoughts on this matter.
AugustO 13:12, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

Just wanted to let you know...

I've changed my mind on the Libya attack. I've been thinking about it and what you said makes a lot of sense. That's all. TerryB 13:06, 21 March 2011 (EDT)


Hey - could you unlock Ronald Wilson Reagan so I can sub out the template? Thanks!--IDuan 15:37, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

Done!--Andy Schlafly 16:02, 21 March 2011 (EDT)


Hey Andy! Just to update you on what I've been working on - we now have a page on almost every Supreme Court justice ever. Most are stubs (which contain information on perhaps their most important opinion, and of course a template showing the positions they served in), but quite a few are fleshed out - like Stephen Johnson Field and Frank Murphy. When I'm done (and admittedly I do have about 18 more to go, having personally created 39), perhaps we could feature one of those two on the main page? Thanks to the templates, they're are plenty of wikilinks to find others.--IDuan 23:44, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

Great effort! I would like to feature this on the front page when you're finished.--Andy Schlafly 00:08, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
I have finished: Conservapedia now has a page on every Supreme Court justice in history. Obviously many of the pages need to (and will) be expanded, but the foundation is there. Could we perhaps somehow feature this? One way would be by linking to the Supreme Court article - which at the bottom has a template I created that lists every justice.--IDuan 22:39, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
Wow, IDuan, that's a phenomenal achievement! I'll post in on the Main Page!--Andy Schlafly 22:42, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
Thank you!! Just so you know I did make one mistake in the above post - there's no template on the Supreme Court article, but rather the separate Supreme Court of the United States article.--IDuan 22:46, 29 April 2011 (EDT)


He's a liberal vandal and has vandalized numerous MSM-related articles. DennyW66 12:46, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

Update- Tehczar is also a parodist and should be blocked. He's created numerous new articles, and since I don't have the right to delete them I suggest a higher-uplook at them and delete or revise them. Some articles have merit if revised, but others (Big Mac) are worthless and some (chalkboard) openly mock conservatives. DennyW66 13:08, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

Unlock request

Hey Andy, I noticed a typo I made in Template:Supreme Court - misspelling a justices name; could you unlock it so I could fix that?--IDuan 10:16, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Done!--Andy Schlafly 10:31, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
Thanks! Done myself--IDuan 14:06, 23 March 2011 (EDT)


User "Jed" has made articles titled "wan--r" and "s---head" and redirected them to your userpage. Obviously, this liberal should be banned. DennyW66 16:02, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Blocked the users - need a sysop to delete vandal's pages, which I marked with delete tags.--IDuan 16:06, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly, the integrity of the wiki...

I like this site. But some of the 'essays' seem a little bizarre. The rant about obesity and atheism is pretty alarming, for two reasons. Firstly, we must argue the case for our religion on its own merits, on the truth of it, on the Bible. The fact that the religious man is thinner (or happier, or wealthier) than an atheist is no more relevant, as the saying goes, than a drunk man being happier than a sober man: It does not make drunkeness the correct status, not at all. The second reason for this is that practically every study shows that obesity and religiosity are linked. The fattest states are the most religious, without a doubt. A simple ranking of states by religiosity compared to a list of states by obesity rates will show this, and this study ( shows clearly that the scientific consensus agrees. Sir, you have an excellent site, with thousands of pages, so I ask you for a sincere answer: Why allow the integrity of the whole site to be ridiculed by this nonsense? DaleKing 15:21, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

I, for one, would take your ranting a little more seriously if you knew that "Bible" takes an upper-case "B." Martyp 15:27, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
A typo, now fixed, thank you for pointing this out. DaleKing 15:33, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
Aschlafly has already answered this type of question on a number of occasions. Humor is an important learning tool. Moreover, the user who wrote the essays in question has worked hard to meticulously document his claims with an extraordinary amount of evidence -- much more than the one or two blog posts that you mention. Perhaps you should contribute to the project in any small way and improve it, if you are so concerned about its "integrity," rather than just whining about things. Martyp 15:42, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
In furtherance of Martyp's comments, studies show that atheism is correlated with poor diet and less exercise, the two biggest causes of obesity. I don't think anyone disputes this, but obviously many are unaware of it. Preach atheism, and an effect is going to be fatter people. Given that obesity is the number one cause of health problems and shortening lifespan, this is a fact that needs more publicity, not less.--Andy Schlafly 16:43, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
The way I see it is that the religious have a reason to do things the require physical activity such as helping out in the community (mowing the lawn for someone disabled perhaps) while an atheist doesn't have anything to drive him or her and is more than happy to just, well, sit there. MaxFletcher 19:01, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
That's probably one reason. Another reason is that the more atheistic someone is, the more likely is to do what he wants rather than what is good.
The man featured in the Shroud of Turin wasn't fat.--Andy Schlafly 20:04, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
One could argue that the religious would want to eat more natural healthy foods as provided by God whereas the atheist, who believes man is the preeminent being, would eat more man-made foods such as McDonalds. MaxFletcher 20:14, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
It's a case of fighting fire with fire. Liberals change the subject, ignore the facts and call names. Our top writer is giving them a dose of their own medicine.
If they (i.e., you) don't like it, Dale, perhaps you might demonstrate your superiority to dumb animals by doing what a leopard cannot: change your spots. In other words, stick to the point, acknowledge facts, and place principles above personalities. When atheists do that, we can comfortably retire our satire. --Ed Poor Talk 11:20, 12 April 2011 (EDT)
I agree with Dale. And I don't think we should give liberals a dose of their own medicine, we should show that we are better than them and don't need to resort to such attacks. I'm not sure that Christians are actually any healthier, physically, than atheists, but that's not what Christianity is about. If people want to avoid obesity they should turn to diet and exercise, if they want to avoid damnation that is when they should turn to God.KingHanksley 11:39, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
Jesus said, "By their fruit, you shall know them". I see no problem with providing data concerning the fruits of various worldviews. I realize that the corrupt want things kept hid in the darkness, but there is no reason why Conservapedia should censor accurate information. conservative 02:01, 30 June 2011 (EDT)


Hi Andy, over the last few days I have been unable to view Conservapedia but now it is back for me. Someone on wikipedia gave me an email address to use after I bought this issue up on the talkpage. If you or someone else got my email and fixed the issue I am thankful. MaxFletcher 18:54, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

Got your email reply, thanks again. MaxFletcher 19:09, 24 March 2011 (EDT)


the user SOIHEARDULEIKMUDKIPZ is vandalizing.--Moshe 20:19, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

Blocked, thanks for your revert. MaxFletcher 20:21, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

Could you step in here

I don't think calling people names is right and I do not think your sysop is being appropriate in his response to me. I should not be persecuted for trying to make sure we act like adults. --AlaskanEconomy 17:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

AlaskanEconomy, you're not being persecuted at all; that's really an unwarranted accusation; for someone who proclaims to be against name-calling, you seem awfully fine in dishing out hyperbolic attacks. Also, just so you know, when you want to do inter-wiki links, you separate the text that you want to show up from the link with a | (unlike with external links where all you need is a space). I fixed the link you left in this section for you. Happy editing!--IDuan 18:40, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
I question whether calling someone, for example, a "smoker" would constitute namecalling. Ditto for saying someone is obese.--Andy Schlafly 21:06, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
How about calling someone a "big fat, idiot"? Al Franken managed to make that phrase refer to Rush Limbaugh. Just try googling it.
But sly remarks like trying to make sure we act like adults are a form of personal attack and should be avoided, okay, A.E.? --Ed Poor Talk 15:09, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
It's not right to call rush limbaugh a big fat idiot, it wouldn't be right to call Newt flabby, I would feel insulted if you called me flabby and you I'm sure would feel the same way if I turned about and did it to you. --AlaskanEconomy 16:26, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

Conservative benefits edit

I saw your recent edit to the conservative benefits essay, and I was wondering why you removed the adjective "small" from the example describing the conservative women's convention and the remarriage rate. I went through the edit history and you originally added that specific example on 2/14/10. Did you find more information about the conference? DennyW66 23:43, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

I don't know why the word "small" was in there. There were a good number of remarried widows among hundreds of attendees at the conference.--Andy Schlafly 00:14, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

Accessing Conservapedia

I have had a lot of trouble the last few days. Hope it's all OK. MaxFletcher 21:03, 31 March 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia is working better than ever. Thanks for your interest.--Andy Schlafly 21:14, 31 March 2011 (EDT)

Thank you Mr. Schlafly

For granting me extra user rights, and for the kind words. DMorris 22:54, 3 April 2011 (EDT)

IP range block

Sorry to bother you, but I have been rangeblocked, and have messed up the Ada Lovelace article because of it, and I can't fix it. See my note on Ed Poor's talk page. I wonder if you could unblock 71.174.xx.xx? It would really make life easier for me. Thanks. SamHB 00:13, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for fixing it! It really seems to be working this time. SamHB 20:43, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

Article/Essay idea

I was looking at the "Conservative Movies/Songs" articles and wondered if I could start a "Worst Liberal Movies" article. Though I am still pretty fuzzy on the US Conservative/Liberal thing I do know there are a lot of movies out there that push bad messages. What do you think? MaxFletcher 19:04, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Great idea ... but it might be a very long list!--Andy Schlafly 21:45, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
Obviously it'd be the most prominent examples! I'll get cracking and pass you a link to look at. MaxFletcher 22:10, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
Just off the top of my head: Essay:Worst_Liberal_Movies. MaxFletcher 22:20, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Matthew and John

Dear Andy Schlafly, I understand that you as the owner of Conservapedia have many responsibilities which you have to attend to. So it's not surprising that you can't react to every single issue which some editor raises. But obviously, you are taking great interest in the Conservapedia Bible Project, so I would like you to help me with the following problems which I encountered within the project. I raised these question in a slightly different form on other places, but I think it is convenient to have them here, easy for you to answer. Thank you for your help!

  1. (John 4:52) Which answer would you give to a kid in Sunday School who asks: How did the servants knew that it was 1 o'clock?
  2. (John 4:46-54) You wrote: The instantaneous healing is central to the purpose of the event. and the point of the story is that it happened at the same moment. How so? Why had the healing to be spontaneous, when the creation of the world took six days?
  3. (Matthew 27:51) At Bible Translation Issues, no. 17, you wrote: The word "behold" appears frequently in the KJV but lacks a modern equivalent. Is there a strategy for this dealing with this concept? Possibilities include "rejoice", "observe", "listen", "note that", and ignoring it altogether (which modern versions often do). Here, you omit the nuance at the moment which you used in Matthew 27:51. I checked a couple of dictionaries and failed to find at the moment as a translation of ἰδού. Where did you find it?
  4. (Matthew 27:51) The New International Version starts the verse with At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn.., but this at that moment seems to be a translation of the leading καὶ (in fact of the string of καὶ-καὶ-καὶ), while ἰδού is dropped from the sentence altogether - as you observed rightly in Bible Translation Issues.
  5. Isn't it a little bit unsettling that this crucial nuance of ἰδού is used in CBP's translation for the first and only time in Matthew 27:51, a verse which is used later on in Counterexamples to Relativity?

AugustO 10:03, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

FYI: over the last week, I searched for a source stating that at the moment is a nuance of ἰδού. I came up empty handed. I now added a source-tag to the translation, and I hope that you will show me where this nuance comes from. Otherwise the translation should be changed back. AugustO 10:41, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Blocked simply for logging in from a NASA-owned computer

I am an employee at NASA Ames Research Center, and thought that I could contribute to this encyclopedia. However, upon creation of my account, it was instantly blocked before I could even make a single contribution. Please see

The reason for being blocked was 'Abuse of a computer system owned by the U.S. or other Government: NASA'. Are all NASA employees blocked from Conservapedia? I find it very strange that one would instantly block any user from one of the United States' first and foremost research institutions.

I know that it is against the Conservapedia guidelines to create a new account when one's first one is blocked, but I thought that this should come to your attention. I hope that it is looked into. I very much like the idea of a counter-bias to Wikipedia, but I cannot imagine any encyclopedia being successful if it does not allow for entries by respected scientific entities.


The answer is very interesting to me too as my special interest Korean Airlines Flight 007 is of interest, or rather, I hope should be of interest, to government workers and angencies of the United States government. My website , that of the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors, received many hits from the Armed services, military acadamies, and government agencies. A number of years ago, almost overnight, that ceased. Same reason? BertSchlossberg 22:47, 10 April 2011 (EDT)

I don't think it had as much to do with your employment with NASA as it did the fact that the senior administrators don't seem to want public employees tinkering with pages at our wiki on the taxpayers' dime in light of huge scandals like when SEC employees were found viewing pornography when they were supposed to be working. DMorris 23:23, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
Are you really comparing edits on CP to viewing pornography? I prefer to use the internet at the office after work as opposed taking care of personal email, wiki-edits, etc. at home where there are numerous more distractions. I dont mean to be rude, but it is not the job of CP admins to decide what I do after I have finished an 8 hour day, or what websites I choose to visit during a coffee break. In any case, it seems the issue was resolved and I applaud the admins for it. AMorg 18:43, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

I would like my account deleted

Again and again I go to write an article or contribute, and I realize that it's not a good use of my time to improve this wiki. I don't feel like there is any commitment to excellence here. I feel like the quality of analysis and effort that I have to contribute is just too high to fit in with repetitive essays about flying felines. --AlaskanEconomy 20:46, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Parthian shots are common ... and unpersuasive. If you're a believer in the theory of evolution, despite its many counterexamples, or an Old Earth, despite its many counterexamples, then why not simply say so?--Andy Schlafly 21:34, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
He probably is an atheist and/or evolutionists who is angry the Flying Spaghetti Monster was put in his place. :) The flying feline sure gets in the craw of some evolutionists and atheists. Two Christian YouTube videos on the flying feline satire were flagged down and made inoperable. conservative 01:55, 12 April 2011 (EDT)
What attempts did he (supposedly) make to "improve" any article here? If I recall correctly, I had to chide him for bias; next thing I knew, he wants to drop out.
Liberals change the subject, ignore the facts and call names:
  1. He says he repeatedly tried to contribute articles, but instead of listing his actual accomplishments (if any) he changes the subject to a baseless claim that we aren't committed to excellence.
  2. He ignores our top-rated articles on Evolution, Atheism, and so on. It's not just SEO that puts these at the top of Google's search results: people read them and link to them, because they are solidly researched and well-written.
  3. He insults us with his crack about "essays about flying felines"
Once again, an ideological opponent comes in with the intent of doing a drive-by shooting; we welcome him in good faith; he does nothing valuable, refuses all accountability; then puts all the blame on us. This is not what scholars do, so I must take him to task.
We are about writing well-researched, comprehensive, easily-understood articles on important topics. Anyone is welcome to help, particularly if they can shed light on ideas we haven't been covering enough. But people who come here pretending to do this are not welcome.
I have repeatedly invited writers who disagree with US conservatism to describe (not exalt) their opposing views. But they continue to refuse, unless their are given carte blanche and free reign. Unlike conservatives, they don't want anyone checking their work and removing errors of fact or exposing fallacies of reasoning.
Now, I believe there are some liberals who are willing to abide by accepted standards of scholarship, but perhaps our project is still to small (and young) to have attracted their notice. Don't worry, our time will come. --Ed Poor Talk 10:58, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

Bear no mind to the last "parthian shot" by Denny-something; rather than be a conservative as he claimed in his last missive, he was actually a liberal troll who came and went under five or six different user accounts. Very typical. Karajou 14:32, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

It's interesting and enlightening to look at those sites that are linking into our articles on atheism and evolution. Examining the sites that link into us may help us enhance our SEO strategy.JimmyRa 12:28, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

Request of Deletion

Can I suggest that 2008 U.S. presidential election analysis page be deleted? Its been more than 2 years, and its a bit irrelevant now. BenDylan 21:24, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

I added a note at the beginning that it is a pre-election analysis being preserved for historical purposes. Thanks for your comment about it.--Andy Schlafly 00:48, 15 April 2011 (EDT)


Mr. Schlafly, would you please check your email? DMorris 16:13, 16 April 2011 (EDT)


Sorry to disagree but I find nicer the first image uploaded about Palm Sunday. --Joaquín Martínez 20:39, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

You may be right. I'm still looking for an even better image for Palm Sunday ....
Have a joyous Holy Week!--Andy Schlafly 21:11, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
The Hungarian image could be used in History of Hungary I believe. --Joaquín Martínez 22:51, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

Did you start Conservepedia?

Because i'm a new user here, and I think it's pretty cool what you've done. --Lollipop 16:49, 20 April 2011 (EDT)

Malicious website?

Hi Andy,

Sorry to bother you here, but I know messages on the main page can get lost in the crowd from time to time. I went to take a peek at the 2004 Obama article cited on the main page, and Norton told me that was a "known malicious website." Do you know whether that's a legitimate concern or a false positive? As I said, I hate to bother you at what must be an extremely busy time of year, but if the warning's legitimate, it might be best to find another source for the article in question. Have a pleasant evening! --Benp 20:00, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for the tip. I simply removed the headline and link, since they had already dropped below the first screen.--Andy Schlafly 20:09, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

404 error messages are frequently becoming a problem for me. Help?

Hi. I've been on Conservapedia for awhile, and I've been edited some pages.

I have a question, and I know a little about computers, but I have been getting plenty of 404 Error Messages, and I have been contacting people to help me with this, but I'm still a little confused because I dont know how to resolve this issue. I have tried deleting my web browsing history and clearing all data, yet nothing works.

How do you fix this problem? It only occurs on this website, and I truly doubt that there is a dead link that I have created. Even when I go to pages that were never edited by me, I sometimes get these 404 error messages. If it's something you can't control or have no knowledge regarding this issue, that's fine. But if you can solve this problem or help me, that would be appreciated.

I'm relying on you, since you are the creator of this website. You have the knowledge.

Thanks, Nash (User:Nashhinton)

(continued).... Nevermind, I think I have a trojan virus and it's causing registry problems. Sorry for wasting your time. Nashhinton

Unfortunately we have that problem too. We hope to have it solved soon. --Joaquín Martínez 18:45, 22 April 2011 (EDT)

Oh thanks. I'm relieved. But I still have a malicious virus on my computer, so I still need to get it checked out. Thanks for responding. Nashhinton

Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, and the Tea Party movement

Maybe we could write more about the concept of Legitimate government. It seems President Lincoln saw a profound connection between the limited powers of government and the idea that slavery was wrong. Despite modern (liberal?) attempts to portray Lincoln as soft on slavery, he famously said that if slavery isn't wrong, nothing is. --Ed Poor Talk 14:36, 23 April 2011 (EDT)

Interesting points. I look forward to learning more about Lincoln's views.--Andy Schlafly 16:53, 23 April 2011 (EDT)

Thought you might find this interesting

Hey, saw this recently and I thought you might find it interesting. [2] Obama wasn't invited to the royal wedding in the UK. TonyB 18:18, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

Really? Who cares? Didn't we have a revolution to rid ourselves of the British and their royal pretensions and privilege? LloydR 18:21, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
Isn't so much about royal pretensions as it is about diplomatic implications. 40 other heads of state were invited and the most powerful head of state in the world wasn't, that might either say something about Obama himself or it might imply something about the UK, but either way it is interesting. TonyB 18:26, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
This is interesting. The Brits don't overlook things these diplomatic subtleties. Perhaps the Brits are still angry at Obama's inept diplomacy towards them?--Andy Schlafly 19:26, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

Birth Certificate

I don't want to be jumping the gun here—should we update the articles saying that the White House has produced what it calls Obama's long-form birth certificate? I already added it to the Barack Obama article as well as one of the offshoots. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 12:46, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Thank you...

...for getting me unblocked and for your kind e-mail. I'm pleased by your notion that you would not have blocked me, indicating that you are interested in clearing up the details of the translation of John 4:46-54 and Matthew 27:51. Of course I'm contributing to additional entries on the site - and I will go on to do so: at the moment I'm preparing some paragraphs on sundials, as I've learned quite a bit on this subject over the last couple of weeks. And I carry on to add dates to the articles on historical Greek and Roman figures, as well as introducing new Augusts :-)

Anyway, you seemed to be not to pleased that I was causing several us to return to the same issue again, and again, and again. But it isn't this the very definition of an ongoing discussion? For my part, I try to introduce new facts and ideas in my contributions to this discussion, for instance, I showed here, why I think that your argument using a Google search is less than sufficient.

What DouglasA called a snide anecdote was meant to illuminate the fact that even today with our improved ways of time-keeping it's difficult to find out whether two events and two places happened simultaneously.

So, I really hope that you find the time to return to these issues - I will certainly do so!

Yours AugustO 11:06, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

Have you seen this [3]?

Tragic ... and unfortunately not that surprising. Maybe the link should go on the Main Page later today.--Andy Schlafly 15:39, 30 April 2011 (EDT)


Sir, some senior admins and I have included you in a private discussion via email, and we'd like your advise in the matter. Would you please check your email box, Mr. Schlafly? DMorris 15:57, 1 May 2011 (EDT)


I have two questions.

1) Can you transfer edits from one account to another? My old one got banned because I used my pseudonym (privacy reasons, don't ask)

2) Do I have access rights to create templates?

--BrandonLyall 17:04, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

It's not easy to transfer edits from one account to another. As to templates, please just request here which ones you'd like to edit, and I'll unlock them for you. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 15:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
Thank you. --Brandon Lyall 23:01, 3 May 2011 (EDT)


I don't know if this is the place to ask for help, but here goes: yesterday I created the page, not realizing that the older, better page already existed. I think my page needs to be deleted, but I'm not sure how to go about that. I don't want to make matters any worse! Thanks in advance. --Bwebster 10:52, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

How about including moving your material into the older entry as appropriate, and when your new entry is empty then we can delete it?--Andy Schlafly 11:05, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I added a couple of minor bits to the article. Thanks for helping me out of this embarrassing screw-up; I'll try not to let it happen again.--Bwebster 13:16, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
No problem at all. That mistake is common, and thanks for adding the redirect from the new entry to the preexisting one.--Andy Schlafly 15:07, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

A question

Why is it some can't edit after a certain time? I've read about it before so i'm curious. Thank for in advance ^_^ --SeanS 20:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Barack Obama

Hey Andy - here is the link where Rob and I have started working on the Barack Hussein Obama update. I recently just wrote a lead for the article and a section on his Illinois State Senate career; I'd love it if you could take a look (note that what we plan to use as the actual article starts at this section), thanks! --IDuan 03:17, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Night editing rights

On the 2nd of May, I sent the following email to Karajou: 'Hi, Karajou, [...] I write to request night editing rights. Living in Australia, it is extremely difficult to contribute to Conservapedia when the site is in protection-mode during most of the time I am awake. Would it be at all possible for me to attain this status?' Karajou, in response, informed me that I ought to ask you. Would this be at all possible? As an aside, I'd like to thank Karajou as an admin for being extremely welcoming to a new editor bugging him with questions. MatthewLa 09:37, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

This site is a meritocracy. I've reviewed your edits and you could be achieving far more before requesting additional privileges. I look forward to reviewing your future edits. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 10:07, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
To be fair to the question, he doesn't get much time for that, given the majority of the time we have open editing he would be, well, sleeping or otherwise unable to be on conservapedia. --SeanS 20:03, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
It's just a matter of how many edits, but the quality of the edits are important too.--Andy Schlafly 21:20, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
Hello, Andy. Thank-you for your kind response. I shall apply for night-editing rights after I have made some more edits. Just to clarify, I was enquiring as to what needed to be done in order to attain night rights, not just asking for those rights. Sorry for being bothersome. Thanks. MatthewLa 21:22, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for this site!

I love this site and all it stands for! Thank you!

I look forward to editing it with pride! God bless, FredM 16:05, 9 May 2011 (EDT)

Also, iws there a phone number or address of conservapedia if I have a question? FredM 13:39, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

Your message

I responded to you message on my talk page. I must say I am a little perplexed. --KimbaTWL 23:44, 9 May 2011 (EDT)

And again. --KimbaTWL 18:34, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly? I responded on my talk page. --KimbaTWL 09:10, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
I have responded again. --KimbaTWL 18:05, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

Do you listen to NJ101.5?

I was just wondering because you and the hosts share some of the ideologies. TerryB 17:41, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

Occasionally, and there is some good commentary on NJ101.5, but I typically do not listen to much radio. Conservapedia provides far more substantive information that radio or television can. But I appreciate the advocacy of some of the NJ101.5 hosts.--Andy Schlafly 08:59, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
Yeah, they sometimes mock religion too. I listen while I drive around for my job and sometimes I get so mad I yell at them and punch the radio until it's off, lol. TerryB 18:27, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

Debate about Bin Ladens death?

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to start a debate about Bin Ladens (alleged) death in Abbottabad. Unfortunately I can't quite figure out how I could start it (link it to the debate page etc.). I would also like to have your blessing for this debate, since it might prove to be controversial. I think it could be an rather interesting subject of discussion though. There are a lot of question marks there for me...

Thanks for your consideration --VPropp 08:28, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

We have two categories for original works here: [[Category:Essays]] and [[Category:Mystery]]. You can see examples in those links and can imitate the format for a new entry if you like.--Andy Schlafly 08:56, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for your suggestions. I gave it a try: Debate: Was Osama really killed in Abbottabad?
I hope it is all in proper form. À Dieu --VPropp 13:26, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

Thank you ...

... for so quickly reverting the vandalism of my user and user talk pages and of an article that I'd started earlier today. DavidE 14:40, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

You're welcome! Others helped also.--Andy Schlafly 14:45, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Your contribution on the article Set

As much as I agree with the sentiment of your contribution to Set about aborted fetuses, I don't see how it relates to the mathematical concept of a set, and it might confuse readers about the article's topic. Could it be removed? DaleHoward 01:12, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

It's a powerful and insightful application of the concept of a set. It's as valid as any other example, and examples are helpful to understanding mathematical concepts.--Andy Schlafly 01:22, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
I share Dale's sentiments, since it doesn't seem to illustrate any particular point about how set theory works other than the very basic fact that a set is a collection of elements. There's no set theory applied to reach the conclusions. "Given the large and diverse number of elements of this set, it would likely include many who could surpass existing athletic and intellectual achievements. Indeed, many of the world records and Nobel Prize achievements recognized today would have been outdone by members of this set" doesn't involve any real set theoretical work in this form. I agree that examples help people learn, so, I'd suggest either: a) Someone with more mathematical background (I have some understanding of it but I'm not confident that my explanation would be the most clear) formulate the unborn children problem more like a classic set theory problem.or b) Use another example, one more intrinsically tied to set theory but still in the spirit of this site - I could see a humorous description of liberal politicians through Venn diagrams, or there are some strong arguments for God's existence that utilize set theory. I'll try to work on it myself when I have more time but if there are any members particularly knowledgeable about math I'd leave it to them. Also want to add that Georg Cantor, considered the father of modern set theory, was a dedicated Christian, and deserves a mention. KingHanksley 17:10, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
If you're looking for another suitable example, how about a set-theoretic illustration of the virtues of traditional marriage? If you take two sets A = {a, b, c, d} and B = {a, b, c, e}, the union of A and B is {a, b, c, d, e}, but the union of {a, b, c, d} and {e, f, g, h} is {a, b, c, d, e, f, h} - i.e. traditional marriage between a man and a woman with distinct gender roles and characteristics gives the union a wider and more varied set of skills, abilities etc. than a union between two people much more similar. Fill in a,b,c,d etc. with suitable terms and the example is both educational and conservative. Jcw 17:20, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
Your example is fabulous, Jcw (and I think you meant to include "g" in your resultant set). I'll add it now, but I still think the set of unborn children is also an excellent example because it illustrates how set theory can enhance one's understanding in a profound way. All the world records and Nobel Prizes are almost meaningless once one realizes the significance of the set of unborn children.--Andy Schlafly 18:25, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
Ah yes, good catch on the 'g' there. I'll tidy up the formatting, and perhaps someone more familiar with married life will suggest some suitable examples. Jcw 20:08, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Vandalism (again)

Hey, User:Dikchead blanked a bunch of pages and i've just gone through and reverted them, can you block him please? thanks. TonyB 17:47, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

Typo fix

My bad, I thought I had that fixed. Sorry!

No problem - your edit was helpful because it enabled me to see how it needed to be fixed further! Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 11:32, 19 May 2011 (EDT)


Hi, Andy. I need some help organizing the depression articles:

Can anyone help with this? --Ed Poor Talk 15:28, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Evolution Page

Are there any plans to delete this page? I feel it's been clearly demonstrated that the page does not contain sound information and as such should be deleted from anything claiming to be an encyclopedia. --HarabecW 15:35, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

Contrary to what this user has stated, he has not - NOT - provided anything substantive that would require the removal of the "Counterexamples to Evolution" page. He has not provided anything sound or irrefutable; he has not provided anything of a scientific nature that would decisively prove anything in the article is wrong; he has provided nothing more than opinion. Where is your evidence, HarabecW? Karajou 15:44, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
Did you check the talk page for the article in question? I demonstrated fully that the article itself is unsound and factually incorrect, I'm not here to debate evolution and I'd appreciate it if you didnt try to take things down that road. I stated the article is of exceptionally poor quality and factually incorrect, I posted reasons and evidence as to why. --HarabecW 16:24, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
Harabec, I responded to your initial criticisms and asked you to:
  • pick your very best objections and present them for discussion
  • take the quiz on openmindedness
Are you going to do either?? Your deletion of information from one of the entries here (Counterexamples to Evolution) is not what I would call "editing" in an informative manner.--Andy Schlafly 16:48, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
I posted my objections on the talk page and posted several notifications to that effect. In fact that information has been there for almost two weeks now. And no I'm not going to take that quiz, it's a terrible quiz. Part of editing is removing material that does not belong in a body of work. If you want to claim this is some sort of factual encyclopedia, you cannot have factually incorrect information in it. Pure and simple. --HarabecW 17:35, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
Would you agree that it is waste of time to debate with someone who is not openminded? And if someone is unwilling even to take an openminded quiz??? Please note, by the way, our 90/10 rule.--Andy Schlafly 23:06, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
Your quiz is flawed, the fact that I'm here communicating in an open, honest, and respectful manner is proof plenty that I am an open-minded individual. I'm aware of the 90/10 rule and considering how testy people seem to get when actual attempts at editing are made, I dont see how anyone stays on the site. --HarabecW 01:42, 23 May 2011 (EDT)


Hello, Mr. Schlafly. As evidenced by this edit, I posit that the user is in fact here in bad faith. He would seem to be something of a parodist, as evidenced by his sarcastic criticism of the Conservative Words project. Thank you for looking into this.--CamilleT 19:25, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

"Daniel Tosh" page

This page is garbage, calling him a "Jesus" and making up a false messianic history about him, but I don't know how to delete the whole page. Just wanted to call this vandalism to your attention. (Daniel Tosh himself is one of the most egregious examples of a Hollywood Values figure out there in the media, but that's for another day)KingHanksley 01:02, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for alerting me to the entry - I deleted it and blocked the user who created it.--Andy Schlafly 01:20, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

A proposal for the CBP

I just changed the verses in the article on the Shroud of Turin to the translation of the Conservapedia Bible Project. But there is a problem: Obviously you are still improving the translation, and so the verses at the article may be outdated soon. My proposal: Let's create a namespace for the Bible Project and give each verse an article on its own. This way they could be quoted like templates and would appear everywhere in the same current version.

I'll create CBP:John 20:1 - CBP:John 20:9 as an example. In Shroud of Turin, I could thus write {{:CBP:John 20:1}}{{:CBP:John 20:2}}{{:CBP:John 20:3}}{{:CBP:John 20:4}}{{:CBP:John 20:5}}{{:CBP:John 20:6}}{{:CBP:John 20:7}}{{:CBP:John 20:8}}{{:CBP:John 20:9}}, resulting in:

CBP:John 20:1 CBP:John 20:2 CBP:John 20:3 CBP:John 20:4 CBP:John 20:5 CBP:John 20:6 CBP:John 20:7 CBP:John 20:8 CBP:John 20:9

And if John 20:3 is changed to something less clumsy, it will appear all over the wiki, without the necessity to edit every single occurrence. Furthermore one could easily find out where each verse is quoted, using Special:WhatLinksHere/CBP:John 20:1...

So, what do you think?

AugustO 12:54, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

Your idea is fascinating and has enormous potential. It could lead to a much greater integration of the insights of the Bible into the advancement of knowledge and, conversely, better understanding of those biblical insights by virtue of other entries.--Andy Schlafly 22:39, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
I think it would encourage the quoting of Biblical verses in the CBP's translation here on Conservapedia. It shouldn't be too complicated to create these verses automatically. I checked the bots available at this site: User:Ed Poor seems to have necessary knowledge and rights to delegate this task to his bot.
He could easily create a template {{section|$1|$2|$3|$4}}, which would display a hole section, i.e., {{section|John|20|1|9}} would give you the verses above.
I'm looking forward to your answer to my extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue at Talk:Matthew 20-28 (Translated). I'm sure that your answer is worth waiting for!
AugustO 11:12, 31 May 2011 (EDT)
That's an excellent idea. If you need any help, I'd be more than happy to chip in. As Andy says, it'd be great to have more extensive use of Scripture in political/historical articles, and anything that makes it easier to quote the CPB in articles is bound to help. I've been thinking of making a sweep through CP adding Bible references where appropriate, but the practicalities seemed overwhelming. If this idea is implemented we can make one of CP's great strengths even greater. Jcw 14:03, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

Is there a place here to report vandals?

Is there a place here to report vandals, like an administrator's noticeboard, or something, or is this it? --BriellaRollert 13:44, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

This page works fine for that. I think there is another page also that works.--Andy Schlafly 18:33, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

May we please have a block on User:JimMac? Thanks and regards. DavidE 10:59, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Yes, please. While I still have editing rights I feel inclined to continue vandalising. If I'm not blocked I'll be stuck doing this forever. --JimMac 11:01, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
Thanks! DavidE 11:05, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

This looks like a case of vandalism: Rollert 14:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

An idea

I had an idea for a project (see here) and would love some input. MaxFletcher 20:46, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

since i cant edit the main page

[4] a court declared the veterans affair Department cant block a pastor from referencing jesus christ because it isnt inclusive to only reference jesus.

I cant find a article on it not from CNN but the story is good, no?--SeanS 11:05, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

Yes, but you can edit Main Page/talk. Rob Smith 16:07, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Editing questions

I am new here but have a few questions. I was interested in adding a section to the bottom box of all the Bias in Wikipedia articles. I don't know how to do that. I wanted to ask Ctown200, but that user's page is locked. I saw a note on his page from TK, but that user is also blocked. So:

  • How do I edit that box at the bottom of pages?
  • Why is Ctown200's page locked?
  • Why is TK blocked? It looks like he was a major contributor! HIS USER PAGE IN CONSERVED AS A MEMORY "RIP".
  • What are the rules for being blocked?

I'm worried about being blocked so I don't want to mess anything up. Your input is appreciated. FredM 14:00, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

See Conservapedia:Commandments.--Andy Schlafly 14:08, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

Picture uploading

Why exactly is that restricted? --SeanS 21:02, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

Sean, Conservapedia is a meritocracy: all privileges, including image uploading, are earned here based on merit. Also, please see our 90/10 rule.--Andy Schlafly 21:11, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

external links

May I please have the ability to place external links into articles without having to go through captchas? I have never been very good at making my way past these, and I often find myself having to try several times in order to make an edit containing an external link. If you would look at my contributions for evidence of my merit or good faith, you will see that the links I wish to add are merely references. Also, when I revert a vandal's blanking of a page, I must go through the captcha since each pages likely contain links that I'm considered to be adding (even though I'm only re-adding them).

At the very least, you can tell that I'm not a spambot, right? Or perhaps I am a spambot that's acquired sentience? Just kidding. Modern science has yet to devise sentient spambots.  :D Thank you--CamilleT 22:03, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

Privileges granted as requested. Sorry for not granting them sooner to you.--Andy Schlafly 00:55, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
Please ask again after contributing more. As I just said in response to an earlier question above, Conservapedia is a meritocracy, and privileges are earned here based on merit.--Andy Schlafly 22:06, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
I understand. I had assumed that this particular privilege was inconsequential enough to be granted in spite of my beginner status. I will ask again once I've proven myself.--CamilleT 22:26, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
Could I please ask again for the "skipcaptcha" editing right? My most recent contributions for your evaluation would include expansion of the eccentric article, adding references to the Jeremiah Wright article, as well as the creation of the article on Dan Savage (with the welcome assistance of RobSmith). I often place external links in articles as references, and I have never been particularly competent in getting past captchas. Thank you hearing me out.--CamilleT 23:48, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
thank you!--CamilleT 01:19, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

How to post an Essay?

Hello, I've been reading some of the wonderful essays on Conservapedia and I was inspired to write my own. I finished it, but now I realize I don't know how to post an essay. Might I trouble you for some instuctions? --Davidkon 13:23, 31 May 2011 (EDT)--Davidkon 13:23, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

Why don't you carry this question to the Conservapedia:Community Portal. Thanks. Rob Smith 16:06, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

move to mainspace

May I please ask for you to move my article mainspace (should it pass your review)? If you would prefer, I can instead do it myself, creating the article in mainspace and leaving a redirect in my userspace (or asking you to delete the page in my user space). Thank you for your assistance.--CamilleT 18:19, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

If my article does not meet Conservapedia's standards, could I please receive feedback for it? Thank you. Or, if you wish, I can put it up in mainspace myself. Which ever you prefer.--CamilleT 20:57, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
Camille, thanks for asking, but on a wiki there is no procedure for prior review of articles before posting or editing. Contributors simply edit and post first, and if there are any issues with it then it is address afterward.--Andy Schlafly 23:43, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

Interview Request

I'm writing a follow up article on the recent events of the editing of the Paul Revere article on Wikipedia following recent statements by Sarah Palin for Digital Journal. I was hoping that I could chat with you about it, as I'd love to hear your take on what's been going on. Send me an e-mail at if you're interested, and we can go from there.

Thank you,

Graeme McNaughton

You can post your questions here.--Andy Schlafly 16:16, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Thank you Andy

1. How do you feel about Wikipedia locking the Paul Revere page from edits following Sarah Palin's comments in Boston over the weekend?

That episode illustrates how Wikipedia does limit conservative information, which is the very opposite of what Wikipedia claimed to be: an encyclopedia anyone can edit. As a general principle, truth is not easily found amid internet bullying and censorship. Evidently Sarah Palin defenders cannot add to the Paul Revere entry, and that shows how far Wikipedia has departed from its goals.
For many of us who once edited on Wikipedia (including myself), its censorship of edits that illustrate a conservative point has gone on far too long there. Unless Wikipedia can right its course -- which seems unlikely -- it will continue to be a silly playground for biased liberal misinformation.

2. Some people I've talked to have said that this is another example of the left trying to control information, as some have said that Wikipedia has a left-leaning bias. What are your thoughts on this?

Wikipedia does have enormous liberal bias, and there are even better examples than its locking of the Paul Revere entry. Look at how flattering Wikipedia entries are about liberal politicians, and how brutally critical they are of conservative ones. Also, Wikipedia's deletion-of-entries practices amount to censorship of the worst kind. Its entry about Conservapedia was once deleted over protests, before eventually being restored with a badly biased description. For more examples, see Bias in Wikipedia.
Against all this, isn't it pathetic that Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view?--Andy Schlafly 18:29, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
P.S. To more fully address your point about the Left in general, much of it is devoted to controlling and censoring the truth, and Wikipedia does reflect that mindset. The Left's insistence on censoring classroom prayer -- even when every single person in the room wants to pray -- is one of many examples. See liberal censorship.--Andy Schlafly 18:49, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

As well, is there an e-mail address that my editor can reach you at? He may need to send you a quick e-mail to confirm that we did indeed chat. If you prefer, you can send that in a private e-mail, as I imagine you may not want to put it out there for the world to see.

Thanks again.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I don't know if you've been following this story, but apparently the production company responsible for Expelled has declared bankruptcy, and put the film itself up for auction.

Now, I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, obviously liberals and atheists will crow over this as if it were some significant victory (ignoring the fact that the film was very successful when released, and the bankruptcy of the company three years later means very little.)

On the other hand, it seems like the opportunity to purchase a film of this significance is newsworthy, and something of which conservatives with the means to make such a purchase should be made aware.

What do you think?

--Benp 20:02, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

That's very interesting. I was not aware of this, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'm not a big movie fan -- movies seem to be declining in significance -- but that film was exceptionally good. However, it may not age well, as the personalities in it might become less well known over time.--Andy Schlafly 21:59, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
This is like reporting that Rocky Marciano died. It really doesn't matter if Marciano died in terms of his legacy as he got a lot of magnificent punches in while he was live. Ben Stein clearly had Richard Dawkins on the ropes during his Expelled interview, for example. :) conservative 01:53, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Edit rights

As I live in the UK, the locking of the database overnight (in the US) occurs at times that are rather inconvenient for me. Could I please have edit rights if possible so that I can contribute normally? Thanks, Guymessage me 10:38, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

We're a meritocracy and additional privileges are earned here. I look forward to reviewing your substantive edits before considering requests for additional privileges. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 11:30, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

Suppressing the right to speak out against homosexuality

Good afternoon, Andy. Today I'm going to write a little bit about Rep. Jared Polis and the Homosexual Classrooms Act. --Ed Poor Talk 12:33, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm writing an article on Dan Savage. It's almost the same subject, have a look perhaps you can use some of my sources--CamilleT 13:38, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

A Few Questions Before I Begin Editing

Mr. Schlafly, my name is Spenser, I am a US Conservative, and I recently found this site, which I found to be very interesting and something that I would love to be a part of. However, there's a problem... see, while I am very conservative, I am much more secular than some conservatives I know, and honestly, I'm not sure if a secular conservative like myself would have much of a place here. If you could, Mr. Schlafly, I'd appreciate it if we could discuss the situation and find out if I do belong here or not. Meanwhile, I have a friend who would have the exact opposite problem with Conservapedia if I told him about it; he identifies as liberal, but is VERY religious, while I myself identify as a conservative Agnostic. Despite this, I think I can provide some insights for more secular articles, such as the Adolph Hitler article. Reply at your convenience, Mr. Schlafly. --SpenserL 23:20, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I am in need of some help. In my contributions to the Pokemon article, apparently the way I worded something was wrong; I was trying to state at one point that the legendary Pokemon such as Arceus more resemble Pagan deities than God. I found out that this was interpreted as me "insisting that Pokemon doesn't replace God, but conceding that it promotes Paganism". That's not what I meant at all; what I meant was that it does not try to replace God and that its legendary creatures are not supposed to be like God, and for artistic reasons like to give the games a better plot and cooler Pokemon to use, they made the legendaries resemble Pagan deities. It doesn't promote Paganism, it borrows from Pagan mythology to create a better fictional plot that isn't meant to promote anything in the way of one religion or another. How do I word it better on the page so that readers understand that? --SpenserL 23:58, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

Political discussion for Young People

Mr. Schlafly, would it be possible for me to create a group/section in the education section for the sole purpose of young people discussing current events and politics in today's day and age? I don't know how many active high-school/college age students you have on this site, and I can't speak for them, but I know that I would love a place to disscuss politics and current events with other CONSERVATIVE students who are around my age. Instead of being a class it could be a sort of "club" for students interested in politics. For example I am highly interested in how the GOP primary is shaping up and would love to disscuss the candidates with other people. (And I don't want to clutter the talk pages by doing it there) What do you think of this idea? --Davidkon 02:05, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Matthew 27:51

I see that the course on American History is now completed with very satisfactory results. I hope you will find some time to review and comment on my extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue as you stated here on May 13. I'd especially like you to look into the use of the google search.

AugustO 09:52, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Possible Vandalism at Paul Revere

After Sarah Palin's comments in Boston about Paul Revere's ride, I was curious as to what Conservapedia might have to say about him/it/her. (The man, the ride, the woman.) I was so shocked at the misinformation in the article I registered so I could comment. After being invited to edit, I corrected the gross error. That same day I was blocked for 5 years for talking too much. I was not warned or informed about the block. Another editor quickly reduced the block to one day without any request from me.

When I looked at the edit history of the article, it seemed apparent there was a deliberate attack on Conservapedia to make it look stupid. At the height of the media brouhaha, the diff where an editor made an outrageous claim was at the top of the Google page for "Paul Revere Conservapedia." That was there for only a short time.

You might want to examine the history of that article and note the three editors who registered exclusively to edit the Paul Revere article. I believe Conservapedia was the victim of an attack and, unfortunately, some real Conservapedians fell for it, failing to recognize the errors inserted or the intent behind them. It is now a much fuller, better article than before; Editors Karajou and Wycliffe are responsible for the improvements. The other real Conservapedians who edited the article during those few days seem to need refresher courses in composition and American history. Cristiana55 12:43, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

Please lead the way by seeing how well you can do on our American History Final Exam. One of our Conservapedians attained a perfect score.--Andy Schlafly 18:45, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
OK, done! I went back to correct a typo that leaped out at me when the format I mistakenly used highlighted it to me. You may not care to grant me that. Then I carefully checked and found I'd misread #41, the word EXCEPT in capitals. But I still don't get the question. Statement (b) is true; the other 3 are false: Quakers settled in PA, their church structure would tend to make them liberal, Nixon was a conservative. What am I missing? Cristiana55 20:27, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
You solicited my feedback on one of the questions, plus I have some questions of my own. My very first day here, though, I got in trouble for talking too much, so thought I would email you to avoid both that and spilling the beans on the test. I've been unable to discover how to email you, though. Will you please tell me how? Thank you. Cristiana55 17:29, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
We can discuss the test here. It's no problem - everyone has had a chance to take it by now. As to question #41, do you still challenge it? Many Quakers did settle in what is now New Jersey.--Andy Schlafly 18:34, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
Thank you.
  • I wasn't challenging #41, but asking what I was missing. I assumed you wanted your test-takers to draw on the fact that Pennsylvania was a haven for Quakers. Your explanation makes sense, and I've learned something. Win-win!
  • My point about #33 was probably too fine. Because of dissension among the Republicans, Lincoln was technically the National Union Party's candidate. Fremont (misspelled on this site) was the Republican candidate. I agree that historians generally and quite properly ignore that technicality.
  • I found my mistake on #18, and suppose on #25 that instead of (c) conformity; non-conformity, you were looking for (b) religious revival; atheism. Both seem like good answers to me, but I suppose you are focusing on the religious aspect, which certainly works.
  • On #32, I'm guessing you wanted (b) the Missouri Compromise because slavery could have surged. I chose (a) the Taft-Hartley Act because it limits the rights of the people (the workers) and subjects them to Big Government. I'm guessing you may see it as limiting socialism.
  • Assuming I may have missed #35, it seems to me both their military service and achievements as president were different: while Madison never saw action, Monroe was wounded in battle; the main event of Madison's presidency was "Mr. Madison's War" but Monroe declared his sweeping Doctrine that was so impactful on our history. (The War of 1812 was important for giving us international stature, but other than that, a sad waste.)
  • I've been unable to identify other wrong answers and would be pleased to find out which you marked wrong.
  • For 13 years I taught high school history in a small Christian school, mainly from A Beka books and some from Bob Jones. One inspired year I taught One Nation Under God by David Gibbs the first quarter, the impact of the railroad on America the second, and great explorers, statesmen, inventors, etc., the last two.
Thank you for your time. Cristiana55 19:17, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
I marked these as incorrect on your paper: ## 4, 18, 20, 32, 35, 36, and 41. You answered #25 correctly and the correct answer to #32 was the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It's great that you taught US History at a Christian school and it sounds like students obtained much information from your course that they would not get in public school. I thank you for them!--Andy Schlafly 20:16, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Ban Question

I seem to have been mysteriously banned by yourself a few weeks back with no explanation. Is there a specific reason? --HarabecW 17:34, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

It had to do with the nature of your edits. Note, by the way, that this is an encyclopedia and editing should comply with the 90/10 rule.--Andy Schlafly 18:30, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
I have complied with the rules since my arrival here. My edits keep getting removed by people who disagree with them and then I have to spend pages trying to argue why posting factual information was not against the rules. I did several major edits and additions to articles, even written some of my own articles, and most have been taken down --HarabecW 22:21, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

IP Block

I believe that my address was blocked due to recent vandalism by the user Alky because my connection to the site timed out shortly after this user was created. I would appreciate it if this block was removed since none of my actions have violated rules on user conduct. Thank you. --Churchofthetrail 20:47, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Is it working now?--Andy Schlafly 23:31, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
Yes. Thank you. --Churchofthetrail 09:49, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

Milton Friedman's Godlessness

May I ask why my edit on Milton Friedman was reverted? His Godlessness is well known [5] (along with Ayn Rand's and Alan Greenspan's) and I am trying to educate the public so that We may know who to avoid (at least in religion matters, not economic ;) ).

It is true this is my first edit, but I hope it is not my last! Thank you for running such a great site. McMurphy 14:22, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

I found the source (which tends to downplay Christianity) was inconclusive about Friedman's beliefs.--Andy Schlafly 15:11, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
We don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Even non-believers and immoral people have made lasting contributions to civilization. Alan Turing's homosexuality is no bar to appreciating his contributions to computer science (see Turing Test and Enigma code). --Ed Poor Talk 12:43, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Best New Conservative Words

I think I may have find a suitable missing word for your project. Please check the page and let me know if you think it's suitable, the word is "level-headed"! --Leo-from-UK 16:07, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

Authorization for mirroring

Hello Mr. Schlafly. This is Aperture Sciences speaking on behalf of the organization Aperture Science. We would like to welcome you and your organization to Progect Internet Backup, an archival progect. We are aware that this webpage is of significant cultural impact and would like to mirror a select few pages. Becuase you have dissallowed unauthorized mirrors of Conservapedia, we are here to ask your permission. We ask that 1) We ( are permitted to mirror up to 10 pages of Conservapedia 2) Publish those pages with all attribution to Conservapedia 3) Permanently archive those pages on our servers Thank you and awaiting your action, ApertureScience 19:37, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

I looked them up. Aperture science is a fictional organization in the video game Portal. The website he gave is just rolling text similar to what you would see during a boot.
If my opinion matters at all to you Mr. Schlafly, I would suggest you ignore, revert, and block this fraud.--CamilleT 19:49, 25 June 2011 (EDT)
Well spotted, Camille. He's blocked now. Jcw 20:18, 25 June 2011 (EDT)
(edit conflict) Your opinion certainly matters here, Camille. We're a meritocracy and the quality of your edits is quite good. Thanks for the insight about the above request.--Andy Schlafly 20:19, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

a suggestion re: 90/10 rule

I suggest having the 90/10 rule be adjusted to be a 80/20 rule. If you look at the edit logs, I think you will find that productive and good-natured Conservapedians exceeded 80/20 in terms of their edits and 80/20 is quite generous. I think setting the bar higher would weed out unproductive and contentious editors. Personally, I would like to see a 70/30 rule instituted, but why don't you experiment with a 80/20 rule first. conservative 18:15, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

What we need to stop immediately is reversions, deletions, and oversighting of discussions between editors. We need sysop guidelines on when such drastic actions are necessary. We need accountability of sysops, and at a minimum, that explanation for oversighting another sysops mainspace or talk page comments be provided promptly. Rob Smith 19:17, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
An 80/20 rule would be stricter against talk, not more allowing of talk.--Andy Schlafly 20:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
Yes, I am in favor of making it stricter through a 80/20 rule at first and then a 70/30 to be tried next. I think it would improve the character of the talk as it would not be dominated by liberal whiners. Of course, if a proven productive editor were to engage in a big block of talk over an particular issue, I would of course be in favor of cutting him or her some slack. conservative 02:32, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
I don't think that this is such a good idea, as it will lead to premature changes in articles. But how is this rule calculated? The constant deletion/recreation of articles and talk-pages messes up one's list of contributions: until someone puts an end to this annoying practice, any tightening of the quoata may be seen as disfavoring lots of the common editors, while favoring those may profit from said practice...
AugustO 09:25, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
We need discussion to improve both article content and site policies, proceedures, and guidelines. Too many articles lack collaborative content. This is a team effort. Some users are good article contributors, some do vandal patrol, some do the technical stuff. Each has his own gift. Ultimately we are judged by productivity, and to what extent someone wants to contribute to the project, and not prevent others from contributing by endless discussion on the merits of liberalism, communism, and atheism. We've heard it all, a thousand times. If Conservapeda did not exist, we'd still hear how grand and glorious liberalism, communism, and atheism are in the schools, in movies, books, TV, internet, political speeches, etc. Enoughs enough. Time to move forward. We need more discussion on site improvement, but liberalism, communism, and atheism ought to be dead letter issues by this time. Rob Smith 23:34, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

(First, Lucky967 is on a vandalism spree; I assume you are on top of that.) I promised myself, several blocks ago, that I would never get into discussions like this, but here goes. I would suggest that the "90/10" rule be modified to take note of the type of comment. It should attempt to discourage combative talk comments, and give them very high weight in whatever formula is actually used. For example, Ed Poor and I have been having extensive, and largely cordial, discussions on the talk pages of Ada Lovelace and Women in Science. This sort of thing should not be discouraged at all. But, as it is, I'm always watching my counts. A lot of other people do this too, and make trivial edits to pages just to keep their score high. (Not that trivial improvements are bad, but it's obvious that a lot of people are "playing the numbers" when they do this.) I also see people making long series of trivial edits to the same page. There should be a penalty for, say, 5 or more consecutive edits to the same page.

Also, if I ran this place (which of course I don't) I would put an extremely high penalty on the use of sysop powers to delete and recreate a page (which among others things, ruins any evaluation of the 90/10 rule) unless the material is genuinely libelous. The same goes for the use of "oversight". Merely being bothered by something someone said is not enough. Reply to it, or strike it out if it really bothers you.

SamHB 23:02, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

SamHB, you make excellent points and I agree with all of them. The 90/10 rule is only be used to combat the wastefulness of incessant, and often unintellectual, talk. It is analogous to rules against loitering, which presumably are enforced only as needed.--Andy Schlafly 23:26, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
Economic/political collapse is going to lead to a lot of things that are not conservativism. World History proves that quite well.--SeanS 23:43, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
I know my voice counts almost nothing as I am very new to this site, which is absolutely justified, but I would like to see the essay and the debate namespaces taken out of the count. Essays are largely expressions of editors opinions, in a way they allready are talk that doesn't help to get encyclopedia forward. But that does also not mean that they are bad, the opposite is the case, they are good and make clear that Conservapedia is open for people having different opinions. Something very much alike goes for the debate pages, these pages are made to debate which naturally involves talking. Letting them count into the 90/10 rule isn't very good. Meritocracy is a good system, but as SamHB brought it up people look at their "stats" (for lack of a better term), when they actually should think and talk about stuff. Maybe some brilliant insights have been lost because people didn't had the stats to speak up. I hope I didn't break the rule yet. --StevenAA 11:06, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
Excellent points. I don't think essays and debate space should be part of the count, as you say.--Andy Schlafly 11:13, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
There seem to be no essay or debate space per se. If you intend to create these namespaces, could you make a CBT-namespace, too? Then we could work on this project! AugustO 12:18, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

The 90/10 rule is not strictly interpreted. We hardly ever count 90 comments vs. 10 edits as a hard limit. It's more of a guideline, and a reminder to spend most of your time here productively contributing.

It's also a natural consequence of the principle that, the harder you work for the sake of the whole, the more of a voice you should have in guiding others.

Don't just create (yet another) alias and tell us to stop being conservative or objective. Help us distinguish between useful and useless ideas, or at least between conservative and liberal ideas. If you are unsure what "liberal" or "conservative" means, that's no problem: just make sure we know the party affiliation of your source. --Ed Poor Talk 12:35, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Uploading images

Dear Andy,

I created four new articles; however, I cannot upload images. Please, give me this possibility, since without images, the articles about the scripts are not interesting. Thanx, Gabor Rovas 23:13, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

Uploading privileges are earned, as this site is a meritocracy. With more contributions at a high quality you'll be able to receive uploading privileges without too much delay.--Andy Schlafly 23:53, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
Rovas, if you'll give me links for the images, I will consider uploading them for you. --Ed Poor Talk 12:26, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Future courses in the economics/finance space?

Andy, are you planning to do any more courses in the near future in economics or finance? HP 01:14, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Economics is scheduled for the fall of 2012, Lord willing. Could possibly teach it or finance sooner, if there are requests for it.--Andy Schlafly 19:38, 27 June 2011 (EDT)


Aschlafly, on May 13, 2011 you announced that you were preparing an answer to my comments from April 18, 2011 on Talk:John_1-7_(Translated). I would appreciate if you posted your review on this page: Talk:Idou. I'm still especially interested in the explanation for your use of a Google search as (the only!) corroboration of the existence of a nuance of ἰδοὺ which could mean at that moment.

AugustO 09:31, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

I look forward to addressing this again soon.--Andy Schlafly 17:26, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
Great! AugustO 12:19, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Average trial length

Mr.Slafly, could use a little help on the average trial length for a criminal case, thanks --AnthonyF 10:33, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't think overall averages are available. I'd guess an nationwide average to be perhaps 1.5 days, though some are far longer and many are shorter.--Andy Schlafly 17:26, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

protected article

can you unprotect final fantasy so i can recreate it? Thank you in advance --SeanS 16:53, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Done!--Andy Schlafly 17:20, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Endosymbiotic Theory

Hi, I recently authored a page on Serial Endosymbiotic Theory (SET) that was factually accurate (I cited sources) and well-written (two users felt the page was excellent). I spent a great deal of time on it in order to legitimize Conservapedia as a source for scientific information. However, I found that it was almost immediately altered beyond recognition. We had a less-than-productive debate on the Talk page, and the article has now been locked to prevent me (or anyone else) from correcting it. I don't know if you read my original article, but I feel that it is far superior to the current one and demonstrates a much better understanding of biological science. Please take a look and give me your thoughts. With all due respect,Professor 19:10, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

My take on this is to have it structured to show both sides, i.e. "here's what mainstream science's what creationism claims..." The one thing I object to is the inclusion of language which declares a theory to be a fact, such as this edit to the article: "The general consensus of the scientific community is that endosymbiotic theory is a demonstrated fact, backed up by a mountain of molecular/biochemical evidence. This fact, in conjunction with a wealth of biological research, confirms Darwin's theory of evolution as a scientific truth." Let's put it another way: I now theorize that George Washington was a girl. Now the theory is out, we must accept the "fact" that George Washington was a girl after all, why? Because I said so in theory! I have no evidence whatsoever to back that theory up. What should happen to refute that theory decisively? By opening up the man's coffin, and until someone gets a court order to head to Mount Vernon with a crowbar, that silly theory is going to be broadcast as a fact for years to come.
I don't care what science says when it describes the definition of the word "theory", it still means "we think;" "we suppose;" "we're guessing", which are all statements based on nothing more than conjecture and opinion, and the general public has to accept that theory as "fact" because someone said so, whether the subject is evolution or George in a party dress. This website can and should explain what evolution is and how mainstream science explains it, but saying that it is a fact when the evidence points the other way is something that will never happen here. Karajou 20:14, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
Karajou, I don't agree with you 100%, but you've made the most logical argument of any Conservapedian thusfar. I appreciate your willingness to explain your views, which you do eloquently. I understand your point with the word theory, though to be a scientific theory, one must back it up with a mountain of facts. People always point to the theory of gravity to refute your point, but that's just one example. My favorite would probably be the germ theory of disease. It's just a theory. However, do you doubt that germs do in fact cause disease? I'm sure you wash your hands all the same. I do take your point, and feel that I might have been rather one-sided in a small part of my article. However, I feel that pretending that huge amounts of evidence don't exist (and deleting them if they are presented) is antithetical to Christianity and conservatism. Respectfully, Professor 20:37, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
In science, we still have to check and re-check everything; we have to test and test some more. The bottom-line for evolution is one species changing into another, better species, and that is something which just cannot be tested in a lab. I'm still waiting for scientists to produce a dog from a wolf, just as they've "said" a caveman had done it.
Oh, I do wash my hands, not just because germs cause disease...I just like keeping clean!  :) Karajou 21:13, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
Professor, thank you for your contribution to the Endosymbiotic hypothesis article. Your handiwork on the "problems" section was very helpful. God willing, I hope your handiwork will be used to further chip away at the evolutionary paradigm. Of course, I don't think it will be used as mightily as Shockofgod's volunteer assistance to the Question evolution! campaign in Texas, but every bit helps. Your work (with some editing to make it more accurate and relevant) so far at this wiki has truly been a blessing to this website. Godspeed, User: Conservative
I object to the term "mainstream science" being used in conjunction with evolutionary nonsense because it is not science. It is just atheistic/deistic philosophy bereft of any real evidence. I think Conservapedia should use words like pseudoscience, philosophy, atheistic/deistic religion or at the very least paradigm/evolutionist when mentioning evolution. Liberals love to use the word "mainstream science" when mentioning evolution and there is no need for Conservapedia to cater to liberal ideology. Liberals love to use "mainstream" due to their predilection towards liking "mob rule" regardless of the available evidence and reasonable procedures for weighing evidence . conservative 21:16, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
I object to the term "mainstream science" being used in conjunction with evolutionary nonsense because it is not science. It is just atheistic/deistic intellectually bankrupt philosophy bereft of any real evidence. conservative 21:16, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, in my Problems section, I actually provide an explanation of each problem, followed by it's solution. This is why the 'Problems' section came AFTER the history section. Logically: here is how the theory developed, and here is how scientists have tested it. I actually provide a link in the page to a scholarly paper on the Hydrogen Hypothesis which refutes two of the problems, and throws massive support behind endosymbiotic theory. Because you lack any training/understanding of biological science, you didn't notice this. You are, quite simply, not qualified to author papers concerning biology as evidenced by your misunderstanding of the "Problems" section. Also, I'm sure you'll be off to block me/edit the page after this. So if this is to be my closing statement as a short-lived Conservapedian, let it be this:
Society is built upon cooperation. We don't live in a conservative society; we don't live in a liberal society. We live in a pluralist society. We accept more than one idea. We do not censor facts or distort truth in the name of religious dogmatism. On the contrary, we embrace common understanding. Scientific inquiry is, historically, the best path towards this common understanding. My goal isn't to crush religious faith; my goal is to better understand this amazing world in which I live. Mr. Schlafly, if you ever read this (and that's doubtful since it will immediately be deleted), know that your project will never flourish in this environment. No Texas campaign will ever see success through the use of these tactics. Science is not, nor has it ever been, the enemy. Professor 21:30, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

We all due respect professor, you are engaging in speculation again. You don't know where I live and you don't know my educational background. I would certainly hope you cease engaging in speculation concerning editors at Conservapedia. I am beginning to think you may obsess about various editors at Conservapedia. Next, I think you are creating a false dilemma. Certainly, members of society need not cooperate in the spreading of lies and nonsense. Lastly, courts have designated atheism as a religion and Conservapedia does not want the atheist origins myth of evolution being promulgated at this website. conservative 21:50, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

To be fair User:conservative, it's a reasonable assumption that you live in America and therefor a pluralistic society, or otherwise another part of the English speaking western/developed world. --SeanS 21:58, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, speculation, like observation, is a fundamental part of the scientific method. You're correct, I am speculating about your educational background, but not because I hate you as a person or am disgusted with your ideas. My speculation is based on observation. You did not understand biological information that most college students can grasp. This prediction is not an absolute truth. Indeed, my hypothesis is as follows: because conservative does not understand this information, then conservative must not have had an adequate education in that subject. This isn't implying you're any less intelligent than I; it's simply an observation that you perhaps specialize in a different subject matter. No doubt you could "school" me in the fields of theology or comparative religion. It is for this reason that I don't question your expertise on these matters, nor would I massively edit any articles you wrote on the subject. I take issue with the fact that you do not extend the same courtesy to me. I spend the better part of my time in a laboratory; I plan to devote my entire life to scientific inquiry and research, particularly in the fields of cell/molecular biology and biochemistry. It is for this reason that I possess a much more comprehensive understanding of the subject. Respectfully, Professor 22:02, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
SeanS, with all due respect, the modern world is a small world and a very mobile world. With that being said, I do get the impression that User: Professor is not one who is keen to admitting when he/she overreaches. conservative 22:44, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
No, I don't admit that. I'm not using "society" to mean "country/place of residence" because...well...that's not what the word means. I use society in the sense that Adlai Stevenson did: our collective civilization, our summation of human achievement, our current rung on a ladder towards enlightenment, a place where there is " an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum." You're most definitely aware that this is the definition I was using, and you are simply trying to create a debate where there isn't one. Why? I speculate it is to avoid the much more pressing questions at hand. Professor 22:49, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

<-- I've hesitated weighing in on this, and as noted elsewhere I did revert to the original author -- Dr. Peter A. Lipson -- version several years ago. I believe my impartiality and bona fidas is without question. Further, I make no pretense to understanding the underlying issues or choosing sides among competing ideas. But I will reproduce some of User:Professor's contribution (correct me if attribution is wrong) below, with my boldening to highlight context:

  • The possibility that peroxisomes may have an endosymbiotic origin has also been considered...However, it now appears that they may be ...It is believed ...This hypothesis is thought to be possible...
  • Evidence. A great body of evidence exists ...that supports the theory ...
  • ...analysis and phylogenetic estimates suggest...
  • The general consensus of the scientific community is that endosymbiotic theory is a demonstrated fact...

Can't this conclusion be rewritten? It just sounds like quack science. And don't think of faking the evidence to force the same conclusion. Rob Smith 15:14, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

Suggestion for site improvement

Mr. Schlafly, I have read and observed the goings on at Conservapedia for a number of years. I offer the following suggestion because I genuinely want to help this site realise its full potential. I do not intend this post as a personal criticism and it should not be read that way. I just don’t think there is any other way to express what I have to say. I feel compelled to write this as, over time, it has become apparent to me that there is a single cause to a number of problems that this site faces.

This site suffers constant attacks from vandals. That is to be expected in any wiki to a degree. But this site, I suggest, has had more than its fair share. Furthermore, this site has lost a significant number of genuine editors with expertise in certain subjects. These are both major issues for a wiki.

A significant cause of both of these problems, in my view, is the behaviour of User:Conservative.

I stress that I do not write this in order to level personal criticism but there is no other way to say it.

In relation to the vandal issue, Conservative has undertaken an extraordinary project in creating a series of “satires” in relation to atheism, obesity and the like. I suggest that those pages are in no way encyclopaedic. Can you imagine any serious encyclopedia including such articles? They not only serve to lower the tone of what is being done here. But worse, I suggest that they constitute a form of internet trolling. They are calculated to outrage readers as is obvious from a number of comments that have been made by Conservative himself. That is their purpose.

Well what is the obvious result of that? Vandals signing up to destroy the other articles on the site. They can’t attack Conservative’s “satires” because they are invariably locked. Of course, the reason they are locked is that Conservative knows full well that they are offensive to a number of people. So these vandals attack the unlocked articles on the site.

The same is true of the articles that he has taken over. Articles about evolution and homosexuality which he has written are written in a divisive manner and without any input from other editors, including editors who have actual expertise in the subject matter. Which brings me to the second issue: the driving away of editors.

Just review what Conservative did to the edits made by User:Professor in the Endosymbiotic hypothesis article. Not only did he destroy some serious work but he then went and mocked the editor on the talk page. When asked to justify his edits he refused and simply posted non-responsive replies. This sort of behaviour will have an obvious effect on retention of good editors.

I said that I had observed this site for some years so I know the views of the various sysops on matters such as evolution and homosexuality. I know why Conservative has been tolerated for so long. All I say is that there is a better way. Rein him in. Allow a reasonable representation of both sides (or all sides). That does not mean that this site should, in any way, promote evolution. Nor does it mean that illogical fringe views need be slavishly included. It merely means that it should fairly present the theory that is accepted by so many scientists in the relevant articles (Endosymbiotic hypothesis for example). The site should also be free to present the criticisms of it. Karajou appears to recognise the benefits of that approach in the section above. Remove the “satires”. They have no part to play in a serious encyclopedia and merely serve to incite vandals.

I suggest that Conservative be asked to modify his behaviour. If he is unable to do so I suggest that you consider removing his sysop rights. Clearly he is keen to contribute and he should be allowed to do so. The problem is that he rides roughshod over the other editors and, indeed, treats this as his very own personal wiki in many ways.

I hope that you give this post some thought. I genuinely believe that the issues I raise could make a big difference. --XavierC 23:13, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

For all their mocking, atheists certainly have thin skins when it comes to comedy and satire. It has been said that their father has a thin skin as well. "The Devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked." - Thomas More. Have you ever noticed that atheists are constantly criticizing the God of the Bible, but they seem to never criticize the devil. Shockofgod made this observation and he said that people often are reluctant to criticize their fathers. I think this observation is true. Of course, there is no reason to cave into this atheist intolerance and attempted censorship. conservative 23:57, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
Censorship? You really have the gall to lecture us on censorship. You destroyed an excellent scientific article that would have been a fabulous addition to Conservapedia, and would have helped to legitimize the site. You then proceeded to mock me, and belittle my contribution as "pseudoscience" without explaining why. When I informed you that you lacked a very basic understanding of biology as evidenced by your gross misunderstanding of the "Problems" section, you quickly went back to fix your mistake (the link is here: Your rants that you pass off as articles are an affront to modern science. Professor 00:07, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
And who says that we must be forced to include your point of view? You have the gall to call that censorship if we don't? You're no more a professor than you are a dog catcher, and the proof of that is not only your silly rant here, but your own admission via a certain harassment/vandalism website. Karajou 00:12, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
You seem very angry and emotional. Wired Magazine made the observation that "atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men."[6] I hope this is not true about you and I suggest not fretting over the things you can't change and instead focus on the things you can change. Maybe you should start your own wiki instead of trying to impose your atheist religious beliefs at this wiki. Better yet, why don't you change your religion which lacks proof and evidence to the Christianity faith which has abundant proof and evidence. conservative 00:18, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Professor, you are engaging in speculation again. You are assuming I completely read the problems section at first. You may have a "Western atheist-centric" view of the world and assume everyone lacks patience. Perhaps, I just took my sweet time in tweaking and re-tweaking the article until I was sufficiently satisfied with the end product. :) Consider reading the JP Holding material I added. You may find you wish to expand your horizons and break free of the folly of atheism. conservative 00:52, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
XavierC, a quick addendum. First, there are people who enjoy laughing at the foolishness of atheism and/or find my satires humorous. A non-Christian person who is a respected person in their community looked at the comedies and satires of atheism/evolution web page and immediately laughed out loud at the "machismo joke". I also know that Shockofgod's audience enjoys my comedies and satires of atheism/evolution and he has over 17,000 subscribers. I really think you need to develop a thicker skin and not try to deprive others of things they enjoy. Second, you wrote "reign him in". I think you are engaging in the same sort of speculation that Professor engages in. You certainly do not know if I am a male or female. Furthermore, as far as your "reign him in" comment, perhaps you should consider the possibility that I might have the type of personality that doubles, triples, etc his/her efforts in the face of opposition. You might be stoking the fire here. I am not saying I do have this type of personality, but just consider the possibility. conservative 01:43, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

(1) This is not about the thickness of my skin. This is about what is best for this site. As I stated above, I do not intend personal offence by what I wrote.

(2) I know exactly who you are.

(3) As to your personality, I wouldn't have you any other way. --XavierC 01:59, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

As i said about where your from, it is a reasonable assumption your a guy. Using gender neutral is also awkward/disrespectful when referring to a specific person, and most humans will default to a male term. --SeanS 02:11, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
XavierC, amongst other things, I did notice that you don't want to talk about the thickness of your skin. No problem. I will let others infer what they will from your posts. conservative 02:52, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Hello Conservative, to clear things up do you have a preferred personal pronoun? SeanS is correct in that people default to male when it's unknown. I don't think anyone means to insult you by referring to you by the wrong gender. JacobSmith 03:04, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Jacob, I am not a big fan of pronouns. :) conservative 03:12, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Fascinating! Normally I'd simply word my sentences to use your username instead, but your username is unfortunately a common word on this wiki. Do you have another suggestion? If not I hope you'll forgive the awkwardness of wording in my responses to you. :)JacobSmith 03:27, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
By the way, I really did enjoy the "Hen Jillette" joke, I wish I had thought of it first. That was a classic. Unfortunately, I am afraid I have decided to wean myself from occasional glimpses of the source of the joke in question. Will a second battery of comedy and satire be directed towards the S.S. Jillette? Perhaps, in about 150 days or sooner? Time will tell. Time will tell. Please stay tuned for future developments. :) conservative 03:12, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Jacob, I do like the username I picked for this wiki. It is awkward to try to tell User: Conservative he/she is not a true conservative. Lastly, I am sure you will figure out how to address me without my assistance. conservative 03:48, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
XavierC, your suggestions concerning the atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles is utter lunacy. You basically want to turn them into them uninformative, bland and uninteresting articles that leave out very relevant and inconvenient facts that liberals wish to ignore. What's the point of having a conservative wiki then? Essentially, you want to turn these articles into Wikipedia articles. My guess is that Wikipedia clones have not been very successful. In addition, liberalism isn't exactly working right now in societies and governments are becoming more conservative either by choice or by necessity. conservative 08:41, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
If your not going to let us know what gender you are, or a pronoun to use to refer to yourself, you can't be annoyed when we use a specific one to refer to you. It's disrespectful to refer to any human as a gender neutral term, especially one in a position of authority (and reeks of PC "we are all the same BS" and for the sake of easily typing things people will default to a specific gender, which will be male the vast majority of the time.--SeanS 09:33, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Whether male or female by birth, I would think that User:Conservative exhibits enough machismo to warrant a 'he'.--CPalmer 10:13, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
I want to add that every time I see a vandal attack, it will be a comfirmation that the atheist community is a proud community with thin skins. They can dish it out, but they can't take it. In short, another confirmation that they lack machismo! conservative 12:32, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Please see: Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life? conservative 13:59, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

@ Conservative: You have again strayed wildly from the topic. Your essay has no relevance to this discussion. @ SeanS: You have misconstrued my suggestions. I do not want this site to be another Wikipedia. This site quite validly wants to promote a conservative viewpoint in contradistinction to that presented on Wikipedia. It should do so. My comments were aimed at assisting it in achieving that purpose. --XavierC 17:54, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

We both know that I did not stray off topic. You just want to get your talking points in and I want to discuss the central issue. You did raise one issue though that was legitimate. Does Conservapedia want to be strictly an encyclopedia or more a combination of a encyclopedia, conservative news website, debate/forum, and essay/commentary website. If the website is part news conservative news website and the main page would indicate it is, then of course satires/comedy has a place since newspapers and news websites have had satires/humor for a very long time. conservative 18:47, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
This site is first and foremost a conservative wikipedia though, not a blog for essay and satire of any kind. So yes you can have them, but they should be kept in their own space (essay, ect) like the rest, and not plastered all over the rest of the site, given the intent of the conservapedia project. --SeanS 18:54, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Apologies to SeanS. All of my post above should have been directed to Conservative. I mistook one of his posts as a SeanS post as a result of them having the same indentation. --XavierC 19:16, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Andy is paying the freight. And I don't think he sees the website as a conservative Wikipedia. I don't think he feels constrained to follow how Wikipedia does many things. I could compile a whole list such as templates, original research, mob rule, layers of complicated rules that are often ignored, etc. etc. etc. I realize many people want to follow wiki "tradition", but I don't think Andy shares your enthusiasm for this. If you want to make your case for the opposite, go ahead, but I think you have an uphill climb. conservative 19:23, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
When i say "Like wikipedia" i mean in terms of being an encyclopedia, which if memory serves was the entire point of this project: a not liberal biased version of wikipedia that could be used for homseschoolers and as an alternative to wikipedia without it's flaws.--SeanS 19:29, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
I agree, there are clear differences between this site and Wikipedia. However, the question is: does this site really benefit from Conservative lowering the tone and encouraging vandalism by his internet trolling? I don't think so. --XavierC 19:33, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
SeanS, if the website has news items, essays and debates, being an encyclopedia was not the ENTIRE point. Sure it is a major point, but not the entire point. conservative 08:49, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Xavier, why don't you create comprehensive resources on atheism, evolution and homosexuality and show me how it's done. Show me how a master wordsmith like yourself operates. You can place it on another website and we will see how interested the public is in your work. By the way, can you show me a internet work you created that people with doctorates and masters degrees have linked to and which receives a large volume of internet traffic? conservative 08:49, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Is that a joke. Now editors have to create articles elsewhere on the internet before editing articles here? And you are well aware that a sizable chunk of the public who are "interested" in your articles are people following the links from the website that cannot be named, coming to laugh at your articles. Great web traffic! Try to stay on topic. Reread my original post and try to address those issues. Why do you say that your "satires" are not trolling (if, indeed, you deny it) and why do you say that chasing editors away is acceptable? --XavierC 16:41, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
XavierC, I noticed you did not provide any outstanding internet works you have produced. Very telling. Very telling. :) Please feel free to try to create such content at Conservapedia and get back to me. conservative 21:01, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
Are you physically incapable of staying on topic? --XavierC 07:35, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

XavierC, I wish to thank you for being the impetus of a new Conservapedia satire about atheism: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder Second, like I indicated before, you want to push your talking points while I want to address the central issue. I suggest you come up with more worthy talking points if you want me to stick to them. conservative 11:49, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

Misplaced Criticism

Having read the above (and having dealt with User:Conservative before) I must say I extremely saddened and disappointed by the behaviour of said user. Deleting comments he doesn't like, straying off topic and insulting others is terrible behaviour and the fact it is tolerated is depressing to me. I like conservapedia and wish it the best but tolerence and implied support of Conservative makes me wonder....MaxFletcher 19:46, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Max, I try to accommodate good faith editors in terms of constructive criticism. For example, RobS and I have come to some agreement recently about some matters relating to oversight/deleting and I took some of his other input as well. At the same time, I don't give much credence to liberal internet critics who are merely trying to pester me and push their agenda. The homosexuality article has been linked to by leading anti-homosexuality and conservative organizations and the atheism article has been linked to by people with advanced degrees plus leading Christian/anti-atheism/conservative organizations. The truth is that atheism/homosexuality is wrongheaded plus they have a number of deleterious effects on individuals and societies. I would also point out that the liberal critics at Conservapedia have never shown me outstanding works which they have created in order to "show me how it done". conservative 20:43, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
Nice try, Max, but I wish you'd contribute in a more substantive way to the site. Lead by example.--Andy Schlafly 20:44, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
Firstly I do lead by example: I am kind, honest and treat other users with respect which is what I am pointing out here. Not contributions but the attitude of users. Secondly changing my comment from "Extremely disappointing" to "misplaced criticism" is the problem I am talking about here. It is disrespectful. MaxFletcher 20:51, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Political Corectness and "Equality" Taken to it's most extreme

When i was typing the above explanation to conservative as to why we call him a male, i remember this article: something worthy of MPR i would think, in sweden a pre-school is trying to encourage/force "sex equality" by not referring to the children as their correct gender, but as "friends" and basically saying societies gender norms are not correct. --SeanS 09:37, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Global Warming‎

I have started Counterexamples to Global Warming‎. I will be away for a few hours; it would be great if other users could start adding to the page. MeganH 14:03, 30 June 2011 (EDT)


I know from experience on Wikipedia several years ago that this user is Grawp/Hagger/JarlaxleArtemis. He will go to any means to disrupt this wiki. He will attempt to release personal information. Carefully placed range blocks are absolutely necessary. Sorry if i sound a bit rude here but this vandal can cause serious problems. MeganH 17:45, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Need help

I don't know how to respond to this edit. MeganH 20:57, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Mention the Medieval Warm Period and say global warming if it is happening is probably a good thing (agricultural production, etc.) for humanity as a whole. Then cite stats about the global temperatures as a whole. Then just to mess with them, give the current temperature at the South Pole. :) conservative 02:41, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
"just to mes with them" come on conservative, thats just mean.--SeanS 07:53, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
"Just mean?" We're "mean" to them when we cite actual global warming stats, the Medieval Warm Period, current temps, and so on? And I suppose global warming supporters weren't "mean" at all when they pushed fake science on the public, pushed fake temperature increases, planted temperature sensors near known hot-spots to artificially inflate the numbers, and demanded that the general public pay for their nonsense? Karajou 08:41, 1 July 2011 (EDT)


I didn't realise you were an admin here. I recreated my user account, not using my full name this time (strangely the user account screen says usernames based on full names are encouraged, is it out of date?).

I'm sorry for posting personal information, but I didn't realise that was against the rules at all. Anyway, I've recreated my account and I won't do it again. =( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MelissaF (talk)