User talk:Aschlafly/Archive51

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Elvis Presley template[edit]

Would you approve if I made an Elvis Presley template for the existing and future articles on the subject. It would include every article in Category:Elvis Presley and any related subjects. It would make navigation easier. This endeavor could bring some additional pageviews to Conservapedia; our article on the Elvis Presley phenomenon is now the fifth article that appears on the Google search for the subject, despite still being in development! search I hope I can make this. As it goes into development, I may request a few more images on the request page; User:Ed Poor was kind enough to upload the last one. Thanks!--James Wilson 14:10, 18 December 2011 (EST)

I just made a rough draft here.--James Wilson 14:21, 18 December 2011 (EST)

Good idea, please continue building and implementing the template as you suggest.--Andy Schlafly 14:35, 18 December 2011 (EST)
It should be fine now. May I move it into mainspace and insert it in the appropriate articles? I just ask it stay unprotected so I can add more articles as I write them.--James Wilson 14:42, 18 December 2011 (EST)
Yes, please proceed with your suggested edits as you think best.--Andy Schlafly 15:17, 18 December 2011 (EST)
It has been implemented.--James Wilson 19:23, 19 December 2011 (EST)

A Question for You[edit]

I have been viewing this site for quite some time, and have a question for you: Why is this site so against liberals? I find references everywhere comparing nearly everything this site opposes to liberalism, but nowhere can I find the reason liberals are so bad. As far as I was concerned, "liberal" and "conservative" were just titles describing somebody's views and beliefs. However, on Conservapedia I am getting a different message all together. Please explain. previous unsigned post by user:MarcusC

If you have to ask why liberal is considered bad and conservative considered good, you haven't been paying attention to anything happening in the world.TonyPark 10:31, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Well put, Tony. Marcus, just take a look at public schools: controlled completely by liberals spending billions of dollars, and the result is millions of students unable even to read.--Andy Schlafly 15:22, 8 January 2012 (EST)
Has any research been done on factors such as spending per pupil or class size, to see if the system can be tweaked? I remember reading a claim that per-pupil spending had been proven to be utterly uncorrelated with student performance, but surely if you spend nothing you'd get nothing; maybe there's a plateau over which other factors than money tend to dominate.
Holding children to standards of behavior, honoring achievement, ditching "social promotion" - are any of these as important as curriculum or prayer in schools? --Ed Poor Talk 16:00, 8 January 2012 (EST)
I suppose I phrased my question badly, and I apologize for that. However, this is exactly what I mean. I can accept that you believe that being liberal is not the way to go, and I certainly don't support a good amount of their actions/ideals. However, I still don't understand how, to use your example, liberals controlling the school system is bad. Idiots who spend tons of money on useless positions and wouldn't recognize efficiency if it sat on them can and should be criticized. However, I can't understand how "the belief in big government, more taxes, and more personal rights" has anything to do with that. Thus, I still can't see why being liberal is the problem. I know people from both sides of the political spectrum who fit into the category I described before. I further apologize for the late response. Thank you. Marcus C 10:41, 18 January 2012 (EST)

Merry Christmas[edit]

I won't be online for the holidays, so I thought I'd pop on and wish you a merry Christmas a bit in advance. I also wanted to share this story with you--a genuine Christmas miracle. [1]

May God bless you and your family.

--Benp 16:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

That's an inspirational story BenP! :-) Best Wishes for a blessed holiday to you & yours. Taj 16:47, 22 December 2011 (EST)

A christmas wish[edit]

My Christmas wish for Conservapedia - I wish vandals would stop targeting this wiki. To those who do: please allow others to express their views even if they do not coincide with yours. Is it right to try to censor all ideas or thought that you don't agree with? If you want to change someone's mind or heart, polite discussion about the topic is always better. Realize that not everyone is going to agree with your point of view all the time - and it isn't right to destroy others work just because you don't agree with what they say. Taj 17:10, 22 December 2011 (EST)

It's not right to censor all ideas that you don't agree with, but I have to be honest and say that some (not all) people at Conservapedia are in no position to complain about this. --HarryPagett 17:27, 22 December 2011 (EST)
The vandals are inevitable, I am afraid. They keep on targeting. However, congratulations on the promotion!--James Wilson 17:38, 22 December 2011 (EST)

perpetuum mobile[edit]

  • I answered your inquiry on my stand on perpetual motion machines here. When talking about entropy often common misconceptions about order, disorder and chaos creep in. To avoid this it is -- specially (but not only) for a layman -- often helpful to think of entropy as energy dispersal and to formulate the 2nd law as something like: "Energy spontaneously spreads out from being localized to becoming dispersed if it is not hindered from doing so."
  • A week ago I sent you an email (addressed to and I'd appreciate to get an answer. Thanks.

AugustO 02:36, 23 December 2011 (EST)

John Hughes[edit]

Hi, I'd like to write a page on great American filmmaker John Hughes from a conservative viewpoint. The image I would like to start with is [2]thanks

The credits for that image are unclear. Can you find a public domain image? It would be great to see a good entry written about John Hughes.--Andy Schlafly 19:27, 23 December 2011 (EST)

British Columbia[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but if possible, can you please upload a copy of the flag of British Columbia? The url is here:, and as a flag of a province of Canada, there is free permission to reuse the image[1]. Thanks in advance, JonM 20:13, 23 December 2011 (EST)

Ps: I also asked Joaquin Martinez to do the same, so if there is a duplicate, I apologize

Mr. Schlafly, please respond, or direct me towards someone who can help me in a timely manner. Thanks, JonM 17:43, 25 December 2011 (EST)
It's Christmas and uploading a Canadian flag is not the highest priority right now. Thanks for your patience.--Andy Schlafly 22:34, 25 December 2011 (EST)

John Hughes Public Domain Picture[edit]

Thanks for your response. This picture is believed to be in the public domain [3] May I have permission to use it?

I'm fine with it as long as it is in the public domain. I looked at your link and did not see any indication of that.--Andy Schlafly 23:44, 23 December 2011 (EST)

John Hughes Picture[edit]

This, if I may, is quite troublesome. The Wikipedia picture for the departed filmmaker Anthony Minghella was originally used by the New York Times and given proper accreditation. The first picture I submitted for approval is in the New York Times obituary for Mr. Hughes under the ownership of "Universal Pictures/Everett Collection", which would have been properly credited had I been given permission to use it. Apologies for apparently not fully understanding U.S. copy-write laws. Best regards.


Hi Mr Schlafly, is there some requisites to gain access to the SkipCaptcha group ?--PhilipN 17:58, 25 December 2011 (EST)

It looks like you were added. :)--GFitz 20:08, 25 December 2011 (EST)
Thanks ! --PhilipN 21:08, 25 December 2011 (EST)
Apparently, the Captchas aren't even required to use Roman characters! :) Huh?--GFitz 22:34, 25 December 2011 (EST)
That shouldn't be a problem for your account here - your account has been granted SkipCatcha privileges.--Andy Schlafly 00:04, 26 December 2011 (EST)
Thanks very much! Now I don't have to invest in a Hebrew keyboard! :)--GFitz 13:38, 26 December 2011 (EST)

Requested move[edit]

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I saw that you created the article Pete Rozell about the former NFL commissioner. The correct spelling of his name is Pete Rozelle. I found out that I don't have the rights to move the page to change the article's title. Could you move the page for me? Thanks, GregG 22:13, 25 December 2011 (EST)

Great correction! The move has been done as suggested.--Andy Schlafly 22:24, 25 December 2011 (EST)

Music Template[edit]

Hi, I created a new template for Music bands or artists: User:PhilipN/Template:Music with an example here : User:PhilipN/Fake_Band. Please let me know if the template name should be changed, if there is some missing info and if the template can be moved to Template:Music_Artist and used. --PhilipN 00:45, 26 December 2011 (EST)

Philip, the new template looks great. Please move (copy) and use it as you suggest.--Andy Schlafly 10:38, 26 December 2011 (EST)
Done, moved to Template:Artist (Music) and started to add it to different bands / artists. --PhilipN 17:13, 26 December 2011 (EST)

Tebowing, Conservative Word[edit]

I'm just curious about its addition to the list of Conservative words and the definition you gave it. We had < a conversation on the main page> where you insisted that Tebowing was a mocking motion by atheists. Can it be both? Ayzmo :) 12:56, 26 December 2011 (EST)

Image Upload[edit]

Hi M. Schlafly, How could I get the upload image right ? I wanted to upload many images about geography articles (Sao Tome and others) + music articles --PhilipN 21:14, 26 December 2011 (EST)

New City Template[edit]

I made a template for cities & town here: User:PhilipN/Template:City (example: User:PhilipN/Fake_City). Please let me know what you think about this. --PhilipN 22:51, 26 December 2011 (EST)


Needs a block for vandalism.--GFitz 12:33, 30 December 2011 (EST)



I saw that you reverted my edit to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Before my edit, the article indicated that the teachers never read the statement to students in the context of a paragraph emphasizing the small size of the Dover Area School District and Dover High School. A reader of the article could mistakenly get the impression that the statement was never read to students at all rather than the full truth that the statement was read by an administrator and not by the teachers (because they alleged that it "misrepresent[ed] subject matter or curriculum"). Additionally, after further consideration, it appears that the parenthetical aside is completely out of place in a description of the defendants in the case; it would better belong in a timeline documenting the adoption and implementation of the ID policy. Let me know what you think so that the article can be improved. GregG 01:01, 31 December 2011 (EST)

No, I don't see any problems with the entry before your edit, or after mine. A statement read by an administrator is not equivalent to teachers' reading a statement. They are simply not the same, and wouldn't be influential in the same way. Administrators say things like when school will open and close; teachers speak to academic issues, which is what intelligent design is.--Andy Schlafly 01:14, 31 December 2011 (EST)
I agree that the teacher reading a statement and the administrator reading a statement are not the same. In fact, the teachers specifically emphasized that as a teacher, they could not read the statement because they claimed reading it would violate ethics rules (a claim whose validity was never tested in court). Regardless, the statement was read to students twice, by administrators, in January and June 2005 (modified).
Someone who reads the text "in fact, the statement never was read to students by teachers" will likely get the misconception that the students never heard the statement, when in fact the situation is more complicated (and could be described at length in a footnote). This misconception seems to me to be furthered by the inclusion of the aside in a paragraph describing the defendant, a small district dragged into a federal lawsuit by the ACLU to make a First Amendment test case. As I said, I think that the teacher's refusal to read the statement does belong in the article (it was in Jones's opinion), but it would be more appropriate in a section describing the creation and implementation of the Intelligent Design policy. It is certainly out of place where it is now. Failing that, I would rephrase the aside as follows:
"(in fact, the statement was never read to students by teachers, but rather by administrators)"
with your link to the MSNBC article in the aside. Let me know what you think of this proposal. GregG 01:37, 31 December 2011 (EST)
Intelligent design is a top down effort (Discovery Institute) which has its place. However, ultimately it is going to take a grassroots effort like the Question evolution! campaign to defeat Darwinism. Conservative 07:28, 31 December 2011 (EST)
I might be missing something, but I don't see how the previous comment relates in any way to the proposed changes to the Kitzmiller article. It would help if Conservative elucidated the connection, as it went far over my head. GregG 14:37, 31 December 2011 (EST)

If the comment went over your head, perhaps you should create a Militant atheism and shortness article. :) Is militant atheism correlated with shortness and is militant atheism sometimes just short men's rebellion (short man's syndrome) against God? :) How tall is PZ Myers? :) Myers doesn't look very tall HERE. :)Conservative 16:16, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I am not an atheist, so please don't insinuate such. I had thought that there was some connection between your previous comment and the subject of this section, but perhaps I was mistaken and the comment was just an old-fashioned non sequitur. GregG 17:08, 31 December 2011 (EST)
Have you seen the new satire Essay: Militant atheism and short man's disease ? Conservative 18:33, 31 December 2011 (EST)

Conservative's Block of JonM[edit]

Why was this user blocked? It seems to have been a mistake. Xaviery 18:15, 31 December 2011 (EST)

There was a mini vandal attack. It was an accident. I unblocked him. Conservative 18:40, 31 December 2011 (EST)


On Dec 16, 2011, I wrote an email to and No one bothered to answer me, though I asked repeatedly. So, that seems to be an insufficient way of communication, therefore I repeat the text of my email here:


I use this way of communication as I want to stay away from public mud-slinging. But I expect that something is done about the tone at Conservapedia. Please have a look at this comment by User:Conservative, directed to me:

Excerpt: I know you are a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent. Face it liberal Christianity is an immoral, heretical and wimpified version of Christianity that tries to turn God into some kind of permissive Santa Clause. The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses!

I once stated that I'm a member of a mainstream Protestant Church (in fact, the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck) But I'm not liberal, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy or pro-adultery!

It seems to be impossible to get into a productive discussion with User:Conservative: Bullying, intimidating,and outright insulting the target-audience of Conservapedia is nearly always the consequence...

This has been worse enough. But today I read Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome, where User:Conservative asks: By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite? I fail to see any humor in it and I would expect that such accusations aren't made in a conservative environment.

AugustO 16:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, would you please stop to trim my contributions? Ignoring a problem generally doesn't lead to a satisfactory conclusion! AugustO 02:02, 2 January 2012 (EST)

AugustO, I am perfectly willing to apologize if necessary. Let me ask you a few questions for clarification. Is the Protestant denomination you belong to pro-evolution? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to ordain women as pastors? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership? While I don't agree with this blog's entire contents, I have a feeling the Protestant denomination you belong to is on this slope and has a significant case of "truth decay". If you could provide additional clarification, it would be appreciated. Conservative 04:39, 2 January 2012 (EST)
Schlafly has emails to check. Billtannan 01:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
I've been at Conseverapedia for more than three years. The tone has always been one of "assume good faith" toward anti-conservatives, but if your purpose is to wear us down with vandalism and tricks; and then to blame us for responding out of weariness, then who is to blame? Stop bullying us, and we'll treat you with the kindness you so desperately crave. Try to destroy us, and we'll draw the line. You get out of what you put into it, and it's time you liberals realized that. --Ed Poor Talk 21:38, 12 January 2012 (EST)
  • Ed Poor, you may want to read User talk:Aschlafly#Invectives, too.
  • I don't see the "good faith" in calling User:RudrickBoucher repeatedly a fraudulent shyster
  • Where is my vandalism, what are my tricks? Or User:RudrickBoucher's?
  • I'm not a liberal. I don't try to destroy Conserverapedia.
  • I don't think that I'm sitting on a high horse when I hope that my church isn't mocked all the time - I suppose that you share this feeling.

AugustO 01:45, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I agree, it's shameful to persecute Christians for their religion. We get enough persecution from atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians. Let's not turn on each other. AugustO, as long as you read your scripture and maintain your personal faith and commitment to Christ you should not worry about what Conservative or anybody else says. Your Christianity is defined by your personal relationship with Jesus first and foremost. Conservative, it is fair to ask the man to ask more of his church, but to bully him like this is un-Christian behavior and a detriment to our cause. We can't write articles celebrating the prevalence of Christianity and conservatism, and then cast out most Christians and conservatives.KingHanksley 02:12, 13 January 2012 (EST)

C's comment (see first extract above) seen in its full context was not faulty in tone. There was nothing personal in his critique of liberal Christianity. Perhaps you are confusing tone with content, a common error we all sometimes make.
A larger point would be that liberals all too often use complaints about tone to distract people from the actual points their opponents are making (see ad hominem).
Once again, if after 4 years of dealing with this patiently, one of our top editors loses his temper he can perhaps be forgiven when you consider the provocation.
Now, I'd like to see mutual civility reign, but that will require those who are constantly trying to undermine this project (a) to follow our simple, consistent and generous rules while they are here and (b) to stop playing victim when their rules violations are pointed out. --Ed Poor Talk 13:58, 14 January 2012 (EST)
Sorry, obviously I was mistaken to think that By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite? was a personal remark. I apologize. I was just a little bit surprised that had to discover that I am a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent: it was a heavy blow for me, as I always thought that I'm quite conservative in my convictions and beliefs.
As for your last paragraph: Whom are you addressing? User:Conservative?
AugustO 16:27, 14 January 2012 (EST)
AugustO, once you embrace Darwinism, you are a liberal. Once a church embraces Darwinism, it is the kiss of death and the church spirals downward further and further into liberalism and becomes weaker and weaker and loses more and more members. Please name me one Western World Christian body that embraced Darwinism and didn't subsequently start becoming more liberal and lose more members in the Western World. On the other hand, generally speaking conservative churches are seeing membership increases. The "liberal Christianity" body you are a part of is on the slope and they need to repent. Conservative 17:37, 14 January 2012 (EST)
Ed Poor, my issue was with the content, not just the tone. Rather than addressing AugustO's point (which was about Conservative's conduct on the website), he was attempting to discredit him based on his church. That's an association fallacy and an ad hominem attack, and there's also a bit of a straw man argument as he talked about as AugustO's position had nothing to do with defending liberal Christianity. It seems that in this case Conservative was the one trying to distract from the topic at hand.
Now, for all I know, AugustO could be one of the people "constantly trying to undermine this project," but in that case, wouldn't Conservapedia be better served by pointing this out rather than launching into invective against his supposed church? Not for politeness, but in the interest of clarity and truth. It will be easier to see that rules and fairness reign if arguments refer to the rules and stay on subject. KingHanksley 17:57, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Sounds like two questions for Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness:

  1. Do you think that is possible for a conservative to belief in an Old Earth and guided evolution?
  2. Is a church which doesn't condemn the theory of evolution, but instead holds no official position automatically liberal, on the slope and needing to repent?

Rick Santorum will be quite surprised that he belongs tho such a liberal body - the Catholic Church! AugustO 18:19, 14 January 2012 (EST)


Can you please block this user? He seems to have gone on a vandalism spree, which I have undone manually. Thanks, GregG 22:53, 3 January 2012 (EST)

Blocked as suggested. Great effort reverting the vandalism!--Andy Schlafly 23:00, 3 January 2012 (EST)

Image upload request[edit]

Hi Andy, can you please help me with this Image upload requests ?
By the way, why is the upload group so limited ? It must be a charge for you to keep uploading pictures for others. Thanks --PhilipN 23:18, 3 January 2012 (EST)

I looked at your links, but they are not clear about whether the images are public domain. Also, note that images are typically not as educational or informative as mere words. The Bible includes no images, for example.--Andy Schlafly 23:22, 3 January 2012 (EST)
All the images in the Religion section are from Wikimedia Commons and therefore all freely usable. I believe those images are useful because they are the symbols of those religions. --PhilipN 23:41, 3 January 2012 (EST)
I don't think Wikimedia Commons is entirely public domain. Your links need to include a description of any restrictions on use.
Also, just because an image is a symbol of a religion does not mean it is worth spending time on. How many of those images are in the Bible? None.--Andy Schlafly 00:26, 4 January 2012 (EST)
With all due respect, I fail to understand the bible argument. On the 14,367 images on Conservapedia, how many are in the bible ? In those images there are images about almost anything from politicians to animals and even cartoons and jokes, why would religious symbols be less important than that ? Anyway, it is useless to argue about that all day long. If uploading images and improving articles appearance is not one of the main axes of CP, could you please give me other directions ?--PhilipN 15:28, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Christianity in Japan[edit]

Thanks for not reverting me on the 6% vs. 1% thing. I'm very interested in any surge or upswing, and I hope other polls will be taken. I'm just surprised I hadn't heard anything about it before, since I've taken 1% as an article of faith these last 3 decades. --Ed Poor Talk 01:41, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Music and Film Industry Association of America[edit]

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Last week I tagged Music and Film Industry Association of America for deletion because it is an article of no encyclopedic value that takes a satire of the RIAA and MPAA written as an April Fools' Day joke seriously. I nominated the article for deletion, but no action has been taken. In fact, I couldn't find any organized system of deletion debates, so perhaps this nomination fell through the cracks. Is there any process I should begin to help move along the deletion debate and deletion? Thanks, GregG 12:03, 5 January 2012 (EST)

Deleted. Good catch. --Ed Poor Talk 01:30, 6 January 2012 (EST)


Could such a template be created? It should include a request for a speedy delete. AugustO 17:59, 6 January 2012 (EST)

You mean something like this?JonM 16:49, 7 January 2012 (EST)


I assume that you will ignore my edit, but nevertheless I wanted to inform you about the high level of discourse shown here at Conservapedia:

AugustO, I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia homosexuality article? Conservative 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST) AugustO 09:03, 12 January 2012 (EST)

The next post was even better: "AugustO, is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? How is that church's embracing of Darwinist naturalist philosophy and liberalism working out for you guys? Any miracles happen in the last service you attended? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) "holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:5)" Conservative 09:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

SkipCaptcha[edit] – Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez 19:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)


To get a truly accurate stance on the 90/10 rule the administrators keep doling out as block reasons, I suggest the special page Editcount be enabled. DynaboyJ 19:45, 13 January 2012 (EST)

That will never be done, it would defeat the purpose of the 90/10 rule. SammyP 21:33, 13 January 2012 (EST)
But it shows whether someone's stats are actually 90-10 talk-main. It recently just seems to be used as an excuse. DynaboyJ 14:29, 15 January 2012 (EST)

If you're looking for someone to block vandals...[edit]

...obviously, we have disagreed on a number of issues here; that said, I'm not a vandal, my curiosity about the site gets my eyes here on a quasi-regular basis, I know how a wiki works, and I'm not interested in trolling. You might say that user rights are a privilege to be earned and that my edit record does not warrant those rights. I am not interested in rights or privileges for their own sake; I'm offering you a regular pair of eyes to help the project deal with vandalism: when you get people writing obscenities and/or blanking dozens of pages in a single surge of vandalism, that's a sign that you don't have enough users with the ability to help stem the tide. Hope all is well, etc. ScottDG 21:37, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Your account has been given three new privileges! Thanks for suggesting the promotion.--Andy Schlafly 23:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)
You could probably add my name to the same category as ScottDG, I don't really agree with much of what you say (although I do agree with much of the tenor of the site); but on the other hand I have never vandal or trolled and I sometimes think it could be useful if I was able to block and revert obvious vandals. I'm not worried either way. --DamianJohn 23:53, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks Andy. Hope I can be of help. ScottDG 14:42, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks Andy. --DamianJohn 17:57, 14 January 2012 (EST)
I am relatively new here, but I have been here for more than a month, and always highly active. I am here to help, and I hope you share the same opinion of me. If you need two extra eyes, when the admins are busy, I am willing, and pleased to help out.JonM 20:38, 14 January 2012 (EST)

For your consideration[edit]

Hi Mr Schlafly. I joined this site a week back after hearing about it online (naturally). It was being mocked by liberals and I couldn't understand why. An encyclopedia from a conservative viewpoint is a marvellous concept and is much needed in a world flooded by liberal media bias.

In the time I have been following events, I have noticed your most prolific editor, User:Conservative displaying utter contempt for all other editors, which ultimately amounts to contempt for this site and you personally.

I had previously thought that such insulting and demeaning behaviour was the modus operandi of liberals and their ilk. I would like to believe that is still the case and that User:Conservative is an anomaly. Cheap insults, deception and censorship go directly against the grain of Christian values.

I hope you read and reflect on the above before this post is inevitably censored. I'm fully aware that I'll be blocked but I don't mind as I would rather use my time in genuine Christian and conservative arenas.

God bless and all the best. --StewMcP 02:49, 14 January 2012 (EST)

StewMcP, "utter contempt for all editors"? True conservatives generally make conservative claims that they can support. I notice you did not do that. Why don't ask User: Anupam, creator of one of Conservapedia's finest articles the Militant atheism article, if I have ever shown contempt for him and if I have supported his editing efforts. Feel free to ask User: Karajou if he will support your extravagant claim as well. I suggest being less extravagant in your claims against other editors in the future if you want to be taken seriously. Conservative 05:05, 14 January 2012 (EST)
How can I cite examples where user contributions have been deleted and their very existence expunged? This is a Stalinist nighmare! --StewMcP 08:23, 14 January 2012 (EST)

I knew you were a poser Christian conservative and not the real McCoy. Thanks for once again confirming this matter. Conservative 09:05, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Poser? I don't follow but I understand that I am now under attack. With all respect, I really don't want to engage with with you. I was addressing the site owner. --StewMcP 09:23, 14 January 2012 (EST)
Hi Andy. Do you know why the New Files link is not working? --Joaquín Martínez 15:41, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for the new rights, Andy[edit]

I will say that I am not really likely to use the blokc that much. I did not join in order to become a blokcing rights holder. I will probably just continue much as I have up to now for a while, but thank you anyway. David. Davidspencer 02:46, 15 January 2012 (EST)

A suggestion inspired by today's vandalism spree[edit]

I saw this afternoon's massive vandalism spree by several accounts. Unfortunately, I was only able to make one undo, since the wiki switched to night editing mode and I was unable to do any further reversions. I would respectfully suggest that when the wiki has to be locked down due to a mass scale vandalism attack, that editing be allowed for autoconfirmed users (accounts with 10+ edits and that are at least 4 days old) and users who have the night editing permission. This would put an emergency stop to a massive vandalism attack while causing the least amount of collateral damage to contributors and allowing all users who notice the vandalism spree to help in making reverts to ensure that the quality of the encyclopedia is restored within minutes. GregG 19:40, 15 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for granting the SkipCaptcha right. It will help when I undo vandalism that removes references from the page. GregG 20:41, 15 January 2012 (EST)

Request to restore my pages[edit]


Thank you for removing my block. I wonder if you could also restore my user and talk pages. I don't have copies. I'm quite sure there is nothing offensive on either of them. In particular, there was a "statement of principle" at the bottom about the educational level of mathematics articles---I want people to avoid showing off. It was fairly strongly worded, but I don't remember its exact content. I consider it important, because it shows that I am in full agreement with Ed Poor on this.

To refresh your memory, I have never vandalized or harmed Conservapedia.

Thanks, SamHB 22:15, 16 January 2012 (EST)

Done as requested.--Andy Schlafly 23:43, 16 January 2012 (EST)

Night editing[edit]

Mr Schlafly, as suggested earlier by GregG, I believe changing the night editing policy would be of great use:

  • We would be allowed to revert vandalism done just before the night editing block (it happens quite often)
  • We would be able to continue editing (I am not in U.S. and it is kind of my favorite editing time)

As suggested, it would be nice allow it to autoconfirmed users and users who have the night editing permission, or some other policy if you come with something better. Thanks for your time. --PhilipN 23:57, 18 January 2012 (EST)

Agreed. There was a rash of vandalism that I tried to undo earlier only to realize that I could not fix due to night editing. Ayzmo :) 00:09, 19 January 2012 (EST)
At 22:22 Tilejoin started vandalism. I was able to block him at 22:24 but could not revert the vandalism due to night editing. Vandalism was reverted at 23:26 by Joaquín Martínez (1 hour later !)--PhilipN 00:12, 19 January 2012 (EST)
Again tonight: vandalism happened at 22:00 (apparently vandals know when to strike!). I blocked the vandal 2min later but could not revert vandalism due to night edit policy. Half of the vandalism was reverted 1 hour later at 22h55 by SharonW then the other half by Joaquín Martínez at 02:59, 5 hours later ! --PhilipN 22:17, 19 January 2012 (EST)
Yes, I tried to revert the vandalism, but halfway through, admin-only editing went into effect. It would be nice if a notice was posted on the front page when only admins can edit, with an approximate time of when editing will be reopened. --SharonW 22:34, 19 January 2012 (EST)
Good suggestions - thanks. Thanks also for your patience.--Andy Schlafly 22:36, 19 January 2012 (EST)
Thanks a lot for the promotion !--PhilipN 22:38, 19 January 2012 (EST)

Request for page protect[edit]

Can we get a page protect for Newt Gingrich in this version? It seems to be magnate for liberal smears recently. Thanks. Rob Smith 23:54, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Yeah, well cited, widely acknowledged liberal smears. RolandW 23:57, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Yes, for example, that Newt asked his ex-wife to sign divorce papers "on her death bed". Seems it took more than 13 years to get this correct (his ex-wife is still alive). All sources regarding Gingrich need to be vettted with extraordinary care given the record. The MSM has allowed this single smear to exist for more than a decade already. Rob Smith 00:05, 23 January 2012 (EST)
Funny, Rob, you're the only one who is trying to insert the smear about his wife and the deathbed. Why is that? --SharonW 01:57, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Andy, can we get the protect in this, compromise version, without thy unvetted smears? Rob Smith 00:20, 23 January 2012 (EST)

This is not "thy unvetted smears" from liberals, this is referenced content added by User:SharonW, a Conservapedian since 2009. Why would you hide Gingrich personal life while exhibiting Obama's or Clinton's ? Is ScottDG right ? "Because liberals" ? And what about Freedom of speech ?--PhilipN 00:50, 23 January 2012 (EST)
SharonW was citing sealed documents which may have been obtained by CNN illegally. how does a news organization obtain documents which a court has ordered to be sealed? Rob Smith 01:25, 23 January 2012 (EST)
The files weren't sealed. Here's a quote: "After initially being told that the divorce documents were sealed, CNN on Thursday obtained the folder containing the filings in the divorce, which had been stashed away for years in a Carroll County, Georgia, court clerk's drawer. Retired clerk Kenneth Skinner told CNN his deputy took Gingrich's file out of the public records room around 1994, "when he (Gingrich) became the center of attention," because Skinner feared tampering and theft. [4]. (Emphasis mine). Do try to give the whole story, Rob. --SharonW 01:57, 23 January 2012 (EST)
After the 1994 elections, when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, the Clinton administration ran an alleged dirt-digging operation out of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff, says Gary Aldrich, a former senior FBI special agent on White House duty at the time. "They hired upwards of 36 lawyers to staff the operation to handle 40 different cases," Aldrich tells Insight. "Once it became known that they had such an operation, then the blackmail itself took place'." It all came in handy when the House impeached President Clinton. "People like [James] Carville and [George] Stephanopoulos said in the media that there would be a `scorched-earth policy' and that everyone who had skeletons in their closet would be exposed' if they didn't back off the impeachment policy"
Sounds illegal to me, not unlike the hit job low level civil servants were disciplined for in the Joe the Plumber case. Now CNN can argue their aquiring and possession was not illegal, such as the New York Times did in the Pentagon Papers case, but these are personal documents not vital to national security, and their only motive for publishing is to do harm to an individual. Even Wikipedia cautions against that. Further, the documents are far from complete, which gives an extremenly one-sided and biased picture. Rob Smith 02:16, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Could someone remove the claim that Gingrich is an orphan? He fits the definition as well as Obama does. AugustO 02:03, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Gingrich fits the definition of orphan used by UNICEF [5]; the US Census Bureau may use a similiar definition. Rob Smith 02:28, 23 January 2012 (EST)
That's nonsense: UNICEF and global partners define an orphan as a child who has lost one or both parents.
  • Gingrich was abandoned by his biological father, the father Newton Searles McPherson didn't die until 1970, when Gingrich wasn't a child anymore...
  • As he was adopted by his step-father, he lived in a complete family and was no orphan even in the sense of the UNICEF any longer.
  • Since when trumps the UNICEF definition the definitions which are generally used in the U.S.?
  • Obama was abandoned by his biological father, too. Is he an orphan?
AugustO 11:52, 23 January 2012 (EST)
(a) Yes, Obama is an orphan; (b) Gingrich was an orphan until the time he was adopted by his setpfather, which most probably means he was born an orphan. This emphasizes the earlier point about all biographical material, and most importantly, sources being carefully vetted. And we have enough evidence already that simply the claim, "mainstream source", is not good enough, in this particular case, given the documented records of The Washington Post, CNN, ABC, and Time magazine vis-a-vis Newt Gingrich. Rob Smith 13:14, 23 January 2012 (EST)
Then so is Bill Clinton, who's biological father died before he was born. To paraphrase you: The fact an orphan rises to the highest office in the United States would be of more interest than the marital troubles intended as an obvious attack on his character should have precedence, at least in website written from a conservative viewpoint.
Face it, your definition is nearly meaningless, and the conclusions which you draw from it are somewhat ludicrous.
AugustO 13:31, 23 January 2012 (EST)
Nah, you've actually made my point: Gingrich is worthy of the same sympathy as Clinton & Obama were, coming from similar backgrounds and overcoming similiar difficulties, rather than the meanspirited, undeserved attacks. Rob Smith 14:50, 23 January 2012 (EST)
Rob, I suggest you update the definition of the CP page Orphan which does not suit "your" definition. Beside, I suggest you update pages of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to add this important piece of information.--PhilipN 15:28, 23 January 2012 (EST)


I was wondering if it would be possible to gain skipcaptcha rights. I believe that my edits have warranted such a change and I hope you'd agree. Thank you. Ayzmo :) 16:28, 24 January 2012 (EST)

I agree - your account has been promoted. Congratulations.--Andy Schlafly 16:40, 24 January 2012 (EST)
Andy, me too, please. Rob Smith 19:21, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Andy, do you think that Newt Gingrich is an orphan?[edit]

Andy, do you think that Conservapedia is correct in calling Newt Gingrich an orphan? A one-word answer is all I am asking you for. Also, as this point is being debated elsewhere on the wiki, I would appreciate the community not dragging that debate into this section -- leave it for Andy to leave his take on the question. Thanks. ScottDG 00:30, 25 January 2012 (EST)

"abandoned" is more correct than "orphaned"; also, Are records of divorce filings and transcripts routinely sealed in most states? Rob Smith 08:20, 25 January 2012 (EST)
Rob, I asked for this debate to not migrate to this section.
Andy -- Is Gingrich an orphan, as Conservapedia reports? ScottDG 09:02, 25 January 2012 (EST)
Haven't given this any thought. Why is there so much protest to the possibility that Newt is an orphan?--Andy Schlafly 23:09, 25 January 2012 (EST)
Because presenting demonstrably wrong information as truth makes Conservapedia, and you by extension, look stupid. ScottDG Talk Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 23:14, 25 January 2012 (EST)
If it is so stupid, then there should be stronger evidence against it than "Why does nobody else?" It should be obvious by now that Conservapedia does not merely follow everyone else.--Andy Schlafly 23:29, 25 January 2012 (EST)
Newt Gingrich has never referred to himself as an orphan, nor are there any sources which refer to him as such. In a speech for the Orphan Foundation of America, congratulating the winners of a scholarship program, he makes no mention of his own orphan status. Although his father abandoned his mother shortly after his conception, that is to say a few days after the marriage and 9 months before Gingrich's birth, he was adopted by his mother's new husband when he was three. His biological father did not die until Gingrich was 27, and his adopted father and mother died when he was 53 and 60 years old, respectively. I am sure that Gingrich and his family would not appreciate his being characterized as an orphan. RachelW 23:38, 25 January 2012 (EST)
Could it be that Newt grew up learning to downplay his status? It must have been difficult for him.--Andy Schlafly 23:52, 25 January 2012 (EST)
His status as that special kind of orphan who has two living parents until he's in his early 50s? I can only imagine how hard it is for a man to have his mother ripped away from him half a decade before he starts collecting social security. That status? ScottDG Talk Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 23:58, 25 January 2012 (EST)
As per my edit comment on the [Orphan] article, the definition of orphan that we are using on the site, that of a child with no living parents/no parents to take care of them, excludes Gingrich, who has had at least one parent since birth, and two since he was three years old. Newt's situation, unfortunately, is very common here in America, where 50% of marriages fail before the ten-year mark. If the father leaving the mother makes a child an orphan, then indeed more than half of the children in this country might be considered orphans. Gingrich certainly did not have to deal with the same challenges that the orphans he addressed at the Orphan Foundation of America had to deal with, and he congratulates the children on not relying on government programs to make them independent once they left the system. Gingrich was blessed to have a good mother and a strong military man for a step father.RachelW 00:01, 26 January 2012 (EST)
(EC)*his father abandoned his mother shortly after his conception, that is to say a few days after the marriage and 9 months before Gingrich's birth
Rachel, Do you have a source for this information? PBS says he was abandoned at age 3. Let's re-emphasize -- all biographical information about Gingrich must be carefully vetted, given the record over three decades of mainstream media sources publishing false personal information about him. did not set the record straight that Gingerich's first wife was still ALIVE until December 2, 2011, when the original smear first apeared in 1984 and has been repeated routinely again and again and again for nearly thirty years by mainstream sources.
Either way, even if his mother remarried two days after his biological father abandoned him, he was ophaned as a child, by any definition. Rob Smith 00:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Growing up with a mother and a stepfather who are around for half a century plus and whom your kids presumably call "Grandma" and "Grandpa" means you're an orphan? That's hilarious. ScottDG Talk Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 00:08, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Rob, Newt Gingrich is not an orphan. Not according to the definition of orphan on this site, at least. Perhaps you are using the UN definition of orphan, which includes children who have lost one parent. Newt did not lose any parents until he was 27. Rob, what other words do you allow the UN to define for you, contrary to common sense and common usage?RachelW 00:10, 26 January 2012 (EST)
Being orphaned does not mean the death of a parent. It means losing a parent. Rob Smith 00:15, 26 January 2012 (EST)
Rob, you haven't changed the CP article Orphan yet. It says that "An orphan is a child who has lost or been abandoned by both parents"--PhilipN 21:05, 26 January 2012 (EST)

I actually have a possible compromise on this issue. Instead of using the word "orphan," which almost everyone assumes to mean a child with two deceased parents, why not simply add a section to the article on his family background, including his father's leaving the family and his stepfather's adoption of him 3 years later? I think that RobS's point is that Gingrich had a less than ideal family situation in his early childhood, which is certainly true. By being more specific as to what that situation was, we allow the reader to make their own judgments about his background and what effect it had on him. After all, the best of the public should be allowed to judge his background for themselves. The word "orphan" is a distraction, and should be left out of the article unless a source for the appellation can be cited. RachelW 00:18, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Yah, but then we're forced to use PBS as a source for biograhical information on Newt Gingrich. That, is a serious problem. Rob Smith 00:24, 26 January 2012 (EST)
I'm sure you can find a better source on Gingrich's biographical information. Besides, if PBS got something wrong on the most basic facts of who he was raised by, I'm sure Gingrich would have come down on them like a ton of lead bricks. Perhaps you can find a source for PBS's botching of his biographical detais, if such a source exists and such a botching did occur. We can't assume everything PBS says is automatically wrong. RachelW 00:33, 26 January 2012 (EST)
Please, be my guest. Google Gingrich+abandoned+father, and find my a credible source on whatever age it happened. Rob Smith 00:43, 26 January 2012 (EST)

I googled Newt Gingrich Childhood and came up with the following sources:

Question: If Newt Gingrich were to come here and see himself referred to as an orphan, do you think he would agree with that assertion, seeing as he held his veteran stepfather in such high regard? If he were to edit his article to remove the information, would you change it back? Don't you think that is disrespectful to the soldier who took young Newt under his wing and gave him his last name?RachelW 01:13, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Also, since the PBS story Rob cited appears to be a long interview with Gingrich himself, I think that it is a reliable source, at least for basic facts about his life. Mr. Schlafly, would you please help us end this debate? It would appear that RobS is the only source on the internet for the claim that Gingrich is an orphan. He does not fit the definition of orphan given on this website, nor does he fit the strange definition given by the UN that Rob seems to want to use. I am worried that if we allow Newt Gingrich to be called an orphan simply because his biological parents divorced when he was 3, we will have to add that information to the articles of everyone with a similar situation. As I said before, in a country where 50% of marriages fail before ten years, this would confer orphan status on more than half of the children in the country, rendering the word somewhat meaningless. RachelW 08:32, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Time magazine declared Gingrich Man of the Year, put a photo of him unshaven on the cover and declared him "obnoxious" in the opening sentence of their interview with him. So the fact Gingrich consented to an interview or received an "honor" from a manistream source, makes what they print about him true and factually accurate, correct? Rob Smith 08:39, 26 January 2012 (EST)
I review those links, too. But remember, if Newt Gingrich's biological father, who died when Gingrich was 57, abandoned Gingrich at age 3, making the claim "Gingrich was orphaned as a child" still would factually accurate. Rob Smith 08:39, 26 January 2012 (EST)
On this website, the definition of an [Orphan] is a child whose both parents have either died or abandoned him. This is the widely accepted definition used in common parlance, and in the Bible. Gingrich does not fit this definition. You are literally the only source in the world to refer to him as an orphan. I have found several sources to back up what I have been saying, please by all means find a source which actually refers to Newt Gingrich as an orphan. Until then, you are simply being stubborn for the sake of winning an argument, at the expense of the reliability of this website.RachelW 09:18, 26 January 2012 (EST)
So, you've backed off your position Gingrich was abandoned by his birth-father before he was born (interesting question: if a biological father abandons a child before birth, why is he called a "birth father"?) and post dated it 3 years based on the PBS cite. Two questions: (1) do you just make this stuff up about Ginbgrich's biological details? and (2) is there a cite to corroborate PBS? And of course, a cite to corroborated PBS would need to be reliable, not just mainstream.
This discussion raises another interesting point: Barack Hussein Obama's early origins on several point were not discussed, or glossed over by mainstream media sources during the year he ran for president. And I am not simply refering to birtherism. Jerome Corsi, and others, pointed out several blatant falsehoods, distortions, and exaggerations Obama himself, and others, propounded about Obama's biographical details. Why is this point about Obama Gingrich so distressing? I've already conceded that "abandoned" is more accurate than "orphaned", yet rather than forge concensus and ask to lift the page protect, you've gone on a holy jihad, and others have been enlisted to emply ridicule against anyone who oppose your agenda. You've taken the case to the site owner, for an argument you've essentially won. Now you wonder why you and your agenda meet resistance when simple cooperation would serve better. What is the real point you wish to make? Rob Smith 21:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Conclusion to Gingrich Orphan Debate[edit]

Rob, I'm glad that you've finally conceded the argument. Now we can get to the task of removing demonstrably incorrect information from the article and replacing it with reliable, informative content. Hopefully, it won't take such a long, torturous debate next time. Mr. Schlafly, could you please lift the page lock so that we can add correct biographical information to Mr. Gingrich's article? RachelW 14:28, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Yes. Might I suggest User:RobSmith/Newt Gingrich and talk page be a place we can begin collaboration; our finished product then can be presented to a sysop with an unlock request without wasting anybody else time further. Thanks. Rob Smith 15:33, 27 January 2012 (EST)
The Newt Gingrich page is now unprotected. Conservative 15:44, 27 January 2012 (EST)
Conservative, can the Newt Gingrich be re-locked so as to avoid endless arguments and editing warring over minor details, as has occurred. Thank you. Rob Smith 15:48, 27 January 2012 (EST)
Rob, we are not here to engage in endless debate. I have altered the article to reflect the accurate information. Expand it if you like, but its not a terribly important detail in the article. RachelW 16:15, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Given the fast breaking nature of the GOP presidential primary race, I don't think it is a good time to protect the article unless it proves necessary to do so. Conservative 16:33, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Well, it was locked for a reason in the first place. Given the fast breaking nature of vandals, can the site owners action be redone, until such a time as the requesting editor can agree with collaborators on language. Unlocking it now only encourages more pointless vandalism. Good faith editors do not have hours and days to continue pointless edit warring. Rob Smith 17:55, 27 January 2012 (EST)


Hi Andy, what do you think of this page, wouldn't it be a nice addition for the Religion article?--PhilipN 23:38, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Mr Schlafly, did you have time to have a look at this page ? Please let me know what you think. --PhilipN 23:19, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Category:Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

This category needs clearing- it has thirty-one pages! Thanks!--James Wilson 13:28, 27 January 2012 (EST)

coat of many colours[edit]

At last somebody changes the translation of "kethoneth passim" = "coat of many colours". It's a shameful symbol of gayness and centuries-old liberal deceits.--EddieM 21:02, 31 January 2012 (EST)

NFL team articles[edit]

Thanks for the added privileges, that will make editing a bit easier. While I have your attention, could I get some feedback from you on this matter? I don't want to overhaul a bunch of articles without some endorsement from a contributor with more experience as a part of this community than I. JunoD 00:46, 1 February 2012 (EST)

I would agree with that, and thank you for dedicating your valued time to thankless maintenance chores. Rob Smith 16:19, 4 February 2012 (EST)
No problem. I actually enjoy it in a geeky kind of way. I'm going to go ahead and get started this weekend; any input from other contributors is welcome and would be appreciated. JunoD 20:21, 4 February 2012 (EST)

Blast from the Past[edit]

Karajou, my voice will not be censored any longer. I want to respect you, and I wish you could respect me, but that will never be possible if you don't directly communicate with me. Please send me and email, or a message on CP if you don't want to disclose your email address. I am not demanding instant change or personal gratification; I merely want people to start working together instead of fighting. I will not make any mainspace edits if you will agree to give me a voice. Please do not ban me; I will find a way back on with the below message again and again. I would love to talk to you about this; I simply disagree with the direction that Conservapedia has taken, and I would like to help it become a positive resource again. Also, please don't label me using pejorative smears. Thank you.

Hello, Conservapedia. My name is Jared Hoeft, and I became a user on this sight under the name of ForeverPeace with the hopes of being able to reverse some of the hateful partisanship I saw flooding through almost every page. I wanted to display my opinions as one man's ideas, while at the same time respecting the rules and the opinions of others, in the hopes of showing my fellow users kindness, open mindedness, and love. It pains me to admit this, but I now see that this mission is impossible. Please, read this entire essay before erasing it, and please, talk to me about it before banning me. I apologize in advance for sounding angry in this essay, and I apologize to anybody who feels personally offended. Please email me with your concerns. My email is

Allow me to begin with a brief self-explanation. I was born into a Christian and moderately Liberal family 17 years ago, and I was immersed in the Methodist Church from my earliest infancy. When I was in middle school, I began to reconsider my religious beliefs. It's not that I didn't love my family, for they are wonderful people. I simply wanted to start thinking for myself. For a while, I was Atheist because it was the cool thing to do in my group of friends. Then I became a self-aware Christian for a short time, before becoming something of a directionless Agnostic. My thoughts on this matter are this: God did not create man, man created God. I look back to ancient civilizations like Ur, Rome, and Egypt, and I see barbaric religions bluntly based on control and tradition, often maintaining influence through fear. Today's religions are much more thoughtful than those, but at their core, they are no different. Religions, like the sciences, are the product of human beings attempting to explain the world around them. I can't put my faith in either of the two, but I have to say I prefer science because true scientists go out into the field in order to establish a hypothesis or piece of knowledge, while religious science goes out with a preconceived notion it wants to defend.

When I look at Religion, I generally see control and the suppression of thought. I was born into a Christian family, and therefore I was a Christian. However, had I been born in India, I probably would have been Hindu. We as a species so easily accept what is dumped into our brains as the truth without thought or honest observance and self-examination. I do not self-identify as a Conservative, a Liberal, or any other ideological categorization. I recognize that many of my ideas are Liberal in nature, and because my family tends to be Liberal, I must always question whether the things I believe are my ideas or the ideas of my parents. I simply haven't decided what makes the most sense to me philosophically; to me, and to the pastor at my church, spirituality is a journey, not a static choice. I'm on a search for a truth I may never find, but my solace is that I am open to every different opinion to some extent.

Sorry about that! I just had to get it off my chest. When I first became a user at CP not too long ago, I entered with the plan of creating and editing only non-controversial pages, mainly involving music. I decided that I would not make any controversial mainspace edits, but I have contributed my thoughts to several talk pages, which leads me to the reason that I am writing this manifesto. Conservapedia was founded with the perceived intention of providing an alternative to Wikipedia written from a family-friendly, Pro-American, Conservative, and Young Earth Creationist viewpoint. I am not here to argue about the validity of any of those matters; they are all unfalsifiable viewpoints that generate useless, endless bickering. I am here to say that CP has become something that's almost the exact opposite of what it aspired to be.

Conservapedia is fascism disguised and promoted as Christianity. Fascism is defined as a political system of thought aimed at controlling a nation under a single-party system with a dictator, who eliminates thoughts and actions that he/she and the ruling party view as detrimental to the society (see for my source). This is precisely what Conservapedia is: When somebody disagrees with the dictator (Andrew Schlafly) and his political party (Extreme Conservatism), he or she is eliminated from the site. If you so much as admit to holding liberal thoughts, you run a high risk of being permanently banned, your thoughts and words forever suppressed. THIS IS FASCISM. Allow me to present some examples.

First and foremost is the page that originally drove me to join CP, the talk page to an entry lovingly titled "Mystery: Why do Non-Conservatives Exist?" Here's the link: On this page, I watched in horror as people were banned left and right for pointing out that the "Statistical Analysis" was complete bogus, having no legitimate citations or factual backups. Conservapedia states in its page on deceit that Liberals are the prime practitioners, but this page presents the opposite message. This is a prime example of the opinions of some being expressed blatantly as the absolute truth. It's truly disgusting.

For another prime example, see the page on Barack Obama. Once again expressing opinions as the absolute truth, alternative ideas are suppressed. Furthermore, there is no sense of clarity or writing ability on the page, which meanders meaninglessly from one hateful opinion of Obama to another. Site admins claim that it is up to the reader to decide what they think, but the reader has no choices to make when all they are presented with is one viewpoint. An encyclopedia's job is to present the various opinions of many as just that: opinions. Their prime function should be to strive for the underlying truth, if there is any, but Conservapedia refuses to remove the fish-eye lens. I found this gem by Mr. Schlafly himself in the talk page on Obama: "Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway."--Andy Schlafly 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST) See the subsection entitled "Real Koran NOT Bible" to check the context of this quote. Basically, Myles was saying that we should wait until Obama has been the president for a while before we throw our hatred at him, and I couldn't agree more. Our duty as Americans is to help our President do the best job he can of leading our nation, and fighting amongst ourselves doesn't help at all. Instead of addressing Myles's points, Andy simply gripes about foreign spelling and accuses Myles of being Liberal. And that brings me to my next piece of evidence.

First sentence on the entry entitled Conservative: "A conservative is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values."

First sentence on the entry entitled Liberal: "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." "Per capita atheists and agnostics in the United States give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists." (Taken from Conservapedia's Main Page)

Non-POV? That's a complete farce. These opinion-drenched "definitions" show Conservapedia for what it is: A political propaganda machine bent on demonizing Liberals and removing them from positions of power, regardless of their intelligence or ability. The Main Page itself contains an abundance of "News Articles" that focus on making Liberalism look bad, without showing any faults within Conservativism. Wikipedia does indeed have a Liberal bias, in my humble opinion, simply because many of the lead editors are Liberal. Conservapedia was founded to eliminate that bias, but it has become the ultimate example of the very thing it wanted to destroy. Jesus said in Matthew 7: "And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother,—Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Conservapedia is the embodiment of hypocrisy, accusing Liberals of the very things it does best: Demonize, deceive, poison, undermine unity, control thoughts, and etcetera. It's not an encyclopedia at all; it's a place for immature "Christians" to go and foster hatred for those who disagree. It violates its own rules and morals left and right through a system of selective enforcement; only those who disagree with the site's preconceived notions of truth are subject to such things as the 90/10 rule.

The only hope for this site is to be destroyed and begun anew. I support Philip J. Rayment as the leader of Conservapedia for his calm, calculated, and mature approach to a site that should be advocating loving, Christian values, open-mindedness, and thoughtful self-exploration. Although I disagree with many of the Conservative ideas, I value openness and acceptance of others over all else; I believe that the solution to many of our world's problems and advancement standstills is for everybody to at least try to open up to the opinions of others. I am NOT perfect. I struggle with open-mindedness, too. All I'm asking for is peace and understanding, love and a sense of reason. Is that so much to ask from a site that claims to strive for those virtues to begin with? Why can't human beings try to love one another again?

You can delete this page and block my account, but I will do whatever it takes to get this message out. Conservapedia has become an amoral, horrendous monster that strives to tear our "One Nation, Under God, Indivisible" into several barbaric ideological tribes. It presents to Liberals the message that Conservatives are generally hateful, hypocritical bullies out to start wars of thought. I know that the true Conservative line of thinking has a great deal of good, loving ideas within it that can benefit our society. But the bottom line is, no human is perfect, and no human thinking system is absolutely better than any other, including my own. We have to learn to work together in peace, and get past our differences. I believe Conservapedia can do that and then some, but the abomination it currently is does nothing but destroy and close minds.

JeremyJCH 22:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)

This is a repeat of the Parthian shot user Jeremy (as "ForeverPeace") placed on his user page back in 2009. Then, as now, he demands his way into the site, demands his way on editing, demands someone else be the site owner/leader here. On his own website he can do the things he wants to do, but here he still wants to act like the silly little liberal fascist he was previously. I can accept him coming back, but one way or another he's going to respect the website and everyone in it before he does so. Karajou 00:29, 5 February 2012 (EST)
He was also blocked repeatedly as users ClemJos, RonaldClooney, LimallJJK, KalebCan, AbbyT12, and Geouty, for vandalism and trolling, specifically the so-called "campaign" to vandalize the site. Makes a mockery of his "ForeverPeace" user name, doesn't it? Karajou 00:37, 5 February 2012 (EST)
tl;dr. Rob Smith 08:54, 5 February 2012 (EST)


Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez 19:12, 4 February 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, Could you move "Gaussian integral" to Gaussian integral? AugustO 19:31, 4 February 2012 (EST)
Andy, Do you have a vandal break or a panic button to shut off editing? A couple of times I've tried to correct a typo or give a quick response, but only "view source" appears. This happens at irregular times with no discernible pattern. Rob Smith 20:19, 4 February 2012 (EST)
Yes and thanks for your patience.--Andy Schlafly 20:23, 4 February 2012 (EST)
The revert function really comes handy, so thanks! AugustO 16:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Santorum victory[edit]

That also means a defeat for Newt Gingrich. I understand that you are not specifically pro-Gingrich but rather anti-Romney, am I wrong ? --PhilipN 23:55, 7 February 2012 (EST)

I'm not sure that follows. In Missouri, for example, Gingrich was not on the ballot. In the other two states conservatives may have simply migrated to someone subjected to fewer negative ads by Romney's side.--Andy Schlafly 00:05, 8 February 2012 (EST)


Why do you hate the UK so much? I've visited the US - Washington and New York - absolutely loved it! Although was shocked when passing through Baltimore (by train) - looked very destitute... Just like 'the wire'.

I don't "hate the UK." It's a shining example of how atheism and socialism can destroy a great civilization.--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 10 February 2012 (EST)
But our civilisation hasn't been destroyed... Not even metaphorically. --RedGoliath 13:57, 11 February 2012 (GMT)

Hmmm... When were we a 'great civilisation'? Was it when we occupied India? A lot of Africa? America? Canada? A bit of China? All because of we were able to create an O.C.P. ( Outside Context Problem )

I am not sure how you can say that one of the G8 economies, is "destroyed". Besides, my british friends are very pious, and to assume that all of the UK are atheists or socialists does a great disfavor to them.SusanP 18:48, 11 February 2012 (EST)
That one's easy: socialism has broken and destroyed the G8 economies and that's why they had to turn to the G20 (once described as the Second & Third World) for a bailout. See what this London paper says about it. Rob Smith 19:01, 11 February 2012 (EST)


Thanks! It comes in handy for refs.JonM 01:20, 12 February 2012 (EST)

You're welcome ... and more promotions will occur as the number of quality edits increases!--Andy Schlafly 01:27, 12 February 2012 (EST)

"Rollback" function[edit]

Mr. Schlafly, I am part of the "rollback" group, however when I tried to revert vandalism this morning, the rollback option did not show up. Could you fix this? Thanks in advance!--James Wilson 14:21, 12 February 2012 (EST)

Fixed per your request! Thanks for mentioning it. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 14:51, 12 February 2012 (EST)

Upload Request[edit]

Would it be possible to get this picture uploaded? [6] The one on the SCOTUS page is outdated and doesn't have Kagen and Sotomayor. Thanks. Ayzmo :) 19:36, 14 February 2012 (EST)

I could not find independent confirmation that the photo is in the public domain.--Andy Schlafly 20:37, 14 February 2012 (EST)
According to Wikimedia Commons it is in the public domain because it is a work of the federal government[7]. Is that not enough? Ayzmo :) 20:47, 14 February 2012 (EST)

Valentine's Day[edit]

You removed my expansions to the St. Valentine's Day article. I'd just like to know why? Was there something wrong? OHara123

I did not find your edits merely to be "expansions". Rather, I found your edits to dilute the history of Saint Valentine and de-emphasize the Christian roots of St. Valentine's Day.--Andy Schlafly 00:27, 15 February 2012 (EST)

Sometimes Unable to edit[edit]

Hi, Andy. I am a student at the University of Connecticut. This morning, I went on my laptop and logged on in the Math Science Building, and was unable to edit. No edit button appeared, but according to the log, I was not blocked, and other people seemed to be editing just fine so there couldn't be a full block on all pages. (The time was about 10:15 AM EST, in case you want to verify that). However, I later logged on via my laptop in another building, and the edit button appeared though I was busy and didn't test it. And now apparently I can edit here too, in a third building. My guess is that some vandals from UConn got an IP block, and since it's a public IP, I got blocked temporarily. What can I do to ensure I am able to edit continuously and productively while at UConn? Thank you. Gregkochuconn 12:44, 15 February 2012 (EST)

Problem fixed - thanks for letting me know.--Andy Schlafly 14:08, 15 February 2012 (EST)
You're welcome... Thanks for helping. Gregkochuconn 15:14, 15 February 2012 (EST)


Well, I was looking in the toolbox to see my block logs to figure out why I was being blocked earlier, and somehow, I blocked myself. Which is odd, because I don't even have blocking power here. So fortunately, I figured out how to unblock myself (although admins really shouldn't be able to unblock themselves, IMO) and now I can edit fine. But why was I able to do that? Did you give me blocking power and not tell me? Even if you did, shouldn't there be some safeguard against accidentally blocking yourself? Gregkochuconn 15:34, 15 February 2012 (EST)

I did promote your account to have blocking powers. With great power comes great responsibility - the first Spider-Man movie, one of the Greatest Conservative Movies.--Andy Schlafly 16:28, 15 February 2012 (EST)
Ok... Well, thanks for making me aware that I have this great power. I had counted on not accidentally blocking myself when sorting through the block log. Now that I realize I actually do have blocking ability, I won't. Gregkochuconn 20:08, 15 February 2012 (EST)

Purpura v. Sebelius[edit]

I read one of the "In the News" posts about Purpura v. Sebelius and found that Conservapedia has an article about the case. Unfortunately, it appears to be a year out of date, and it also is protected. I think we should update the article to reflect the latest developments in the case (the motion to dismiss by the District of New Jersey, the appeal to the 3rd circuit, and the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case). GregG 22:35, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Read what a demography expert said about 2020 and the abortion culture war - tipping point in favor of pro-lifers[edit]

Read HERE what a demography expert said about 2020 and the abortion culture war - tipping point in favor of pro-lifers. Conservative 06:42, 1 March 2012 (EST)

Ermm, despite having had at least 2 goes that link leads nowhere. Correction. The second go leads to somewhere now. Davidspencer 08:24, 1 March 2012 (EST)

Filter Preventing me from Editing[edit]

I was trying to add the following text to the same-sex marriage page.

"In Israel, all marriages must be performed by a religious organization - there is no "civil" marriage. Specific religions may determine the definition of marriages that they perform, and none currently recognize same-sex couples. However, a Supreme Court decision determined that Israel must recognize all marriages performed outside the country, same-sex or opposite-sex. "

However, I was unable to edit the page due to a filter which blocked the text "UNDERSCORE C UNDERSCORE" (it actually had the underscores, but I obviously can't put them in). However, this text was in a link for a citation saying "WASHINGTON UNDERSCORE D UNDERSCORE C CITY Council legalizes same-sex marriage" or something like that. I forget the exact wording, but it was obviously not spam and the only reason the filter was triggered was due to the underscores before and after the C in "D C". Any way we can turn that filter off or modify it to avoid so many false positives? For some reason this reminds me of the "Tyson Homosexual" incident a few years ago. Gregkochuconn 15:57, 2 March 2012 (EST)

The filter has been updated such that you should be able to edit without difficulty now.--Andy Schlafly 16:37, 2 March 2012 (EST)