User talk:RobS/archive2

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Being Factual

Also means being honest. "Rap Music" is not a standard method of torturing somebody. Flippin 18:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps that's a subject for a Conservapedia:Debate. RobS 18:03, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps you might read the post I made on the talk page for torture and unprotect the page so as to allow accurate information instead of POV pushing? Flippin 09:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


Hello- I am addressing this to you in your role as a Sysop,

I came to Conservapedia hoping for discourse and dialog - but have found a community that responds to opinions that are contrary to the established norms by blocking pages and blocking contributors (specifically, I'm thinking of my experience on the Deceit entry.) Intellectual dishonesty, ethnic and religious paranoia, religious zealotry, close-mindedness to established science and intellectual bullying are not conservative values as I understand the term "conservative," and yet this place is full of these values - and the Conservapedia establishment, namely Aschlafely, are the main perpetrators.

Thanks for the visit. Please delete my account. Jacobin 21:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry to hear this. I myself value discourse and dialogue as you do very highly, and feel it sharpens all our wits even when we don't persuade the other guy. It obvious there's not a single-minded view of the world out there, and one thing I hope this site does is demonstate to non-conservatives many of their views and stereotypes about conservatives have been portrayed inaccurately. The Deceit article is an interesting example, as non-conservatives may think of deciet as just another noun, but as you have experienced, it is something many conservatives feel strongly about, and even regard it as a subject worthy of open public discourse. And I'd guess many liberals never imagined this about conservatives.
We're a young site. We got plenty of room to grow. We need balanced input. I hope you'll reconsider. RobS 21:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)


I blocked PF Fox for a week. Until he comes back, can we unprotect the torture article? --Ed Poor 12:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


Thanks for the help on the Extraordinary rendition article. It was much appreciated.

No problem; and there is still much more to add. RobS 16:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


Thanks RobS for getting me back! I think based on our discussions we can keep balanced articles with both perspectives. I've started editing gay rights; I kept the section on "opposition," which you can feel free to flesh out. However, I don't have at on of time; don't expect me to be replying a lot :-/-AmesGyo! 10:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Have to Say

I disagree with your assessment of Nambla. Flippin 16:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It wasn't speedied; it's up for discussion. RobS 16:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Can I archive your talk page? It's massive.-AmesGyo! 16:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Sure. RobS 16:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Done!-AmesGyo! 16:41, 26 April 2007 (EDT)


For the revert, seems to be wheeble from the last group of attacks, same language use in his post.--TimS 13:17, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Yah, I noticed the default setting [1] blocked the IP too. RobS 13:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)


Thanks for your support. One could argue that he would have to be blocked by an uninvolved sysop, but he was breaking more rules than mere edit warring by blocking to sites promoting illegal activity. Since the block guidelines don't say anything specifically about that, I think we have more leeway as far as what to do in such a situation, or if he comes back and starts doing it again. DanH 15:45, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Double Redirects

some pages you might want to delete... GodlessLiberal 20:40, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. RobS 20:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)


I don't think he deserves an instant block for writing on your page that you're conservative. He wrote on mine that I'm liberal. A polite warning to him that it's not polite to write on user pages would've probably sufficed.-AmesGyo! 22:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

OH MY GOD! I just saw he put a swastika on his page! I take it back, take it back! Glad you blocked him!!!! And Andy's right to up it to a month!!!-AmesGyo! 22:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Child molesting

I have created this article, and need additional info to make it work as per the subheading structure. I have also moved some NAMBLA info from that article in it, therefore we can delete that article. The idea is to make it informative for families to identify child molesting, where to get help, and make the molesters look as bad as possible. Karajou 23:57, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Nancy Pelosi

Her negatives this last round of national polling (20th-25th April) now exceed the positives, among Liberals, even females. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow. Got a cite? Here's a theory, GW Bush's bad poll numbers are being misinterpreted, because even the Democratic Congress disapproval ratings are 60/40. What this means is people are PO'd at government in general, not just GWB. RobS 13:01, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I will get it. I receive a Monday compilation of the weekend talk-fests, and it was mentioned in several of them. I know it was mentioned on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Rob! join the Sysop group! Andy posted above about it! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is something I put on the main page

Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive Conservative 21:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Edit conflicts

Rob, I'm sorry, I've stepped on your edits two or three times in the last few minutes. I think I better just take some time off from editing. You go ahead, okay? :-) --Ed Poor 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

No problem at all. I think between the two of us we come up with good stuff in both discussion & the mainspace. When I get reverted, it makes me look harder at the sources, which is a good thing. RobS 14:38, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

mental illness

Out of curiosity, why did you remove marriage and family therapists from the list? Murray 15:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)


Please go and look at the bottom of 18:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

About AmesG

Hi, could you please specify from what false citations and quotes AmesG was banned from. Thank you. Timppeli 12:56, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

There are at least three examples here Talk:Reparative therapy. RobS 12:57, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok, thanks. But then it is as i was afraid of. I presume you mean the mixup between American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association. As i allready explained on the page, i dont see how one could see that as on nothing more than unintended mix up. There was nothing to gain, both organications share the same view and even the link was to correct place where there even was an agreeing statement by the American Psychiatric Association. I think the ban might been a bit hard decision from that one. I allso read the whole page thro, and i can't really find anything else either that Ames would have done wrong. If there is, could you paste an quote please. Hope you reconcider the ban. Timppeli 13:14, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
AmesG and have spoken by e-mail extensively on this subject, so I know he's aware of the issues. On my own, I intervened to get his old block lifted so we could collaborate. The "mix up" of the APA with the APA at first was excusable, but I served noticed. Then, in reading the texts of the cites, it was obvious they were misreprented and distorted. This conduct is absolutley intolerable. I have better things to do with my time. RobS 13:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I partly agree you on some points and that wording could have been more carefully selected, and on other points i agree AmesG and his interpretions. But the point im making is that it's normal in here and well, in all wikis. You will be really hard pressed to find an article where people completely agree on the wordings and citations. Ill give here two examples. If you really think that the limit of tolerance should be placed where it was on AmesG:s case, im sure you will ban allso these people from their misquotes.
Here there is clear evidence under the False citation paragraph that the citation is not only faulty but it actually says just the opposite what Mr Aschlafly tells in the article. It wasn't ever even corrected.
Here(at the bottom of talk page) the one im using as an example is the claimes from Michael Mann. On CP article he was accused on being investigated by the senate from scientific fraud. This never happened and the citations never claims he did. Thats an quite monumental error, much bigger than any of the ones AmesG made. But still i personally wouldn't ban Ed Poor from it. Even tho knowing his view on the subject, im still willing to assume it was just an mistake. But as said, much more serious one than the one made by Ames. If Ames was banned, so should Ed.
This is all i had to say on the subject. I really see only two ways for this to be fair. Reconsidering AmesG:s ban, even if he made mistakes, they are so common here that banning people from them would lead us to have allmost no contributers. Or then we can take the hard line and ban allso the people i mentioned. But there really is no middle way that could be concidered fair. (and no, not asking you seriously to ban Mr. Aschlafly, but you get the point ;) ) Timppeli 15:53, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry if im rushing, but if you have decided allready on what to do about this case, i would appriciate some feed back :) Timppeli 10:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
No problem. I'm examining the cases and talking with AmesG privately. RobS 12:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I reverted your edit on Hitler

It was not only the Comintern, but communists in general. Read a history book before making up nonsense. Conservative 13:12, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Whoa, down boy, sit, roll over. RobS 13:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Don't worry. That was the fake Conservative. --Wikinterpretertalk?

reparative therapy

FYI Rob, am off to a meeting and may not be able to discuss further today. Murray 15:50, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Dear Sir

you may revert the edits to the socialism article, but therefore you are breaking the Commandments themselves by doing so. This is meant to be a trustworthy encyclopedia which provides an objective view of facts. Now, you may want to alter history, but I'm afraid someone who is ignorant of the Atlee government cannot accurately alter an article which cites it as an example of how socialism can work. --Boris Johnson, MP 16:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Objective view of facts
hmm, what should we do with these two edits,
  • backed up by what we know about his life
  • Hopefully Gordon Brown should correct this [2]
The first entry we could change to what is known, but it still has a conspiratorial ring to it. The second sounds like a bit of sales pitch. RobS 16:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

And what should we do with your own bias then, which is even more pronounced? --Boris Johnson, MP 16:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I didn't want to revert you completely, and I don't want to run around with a pooper scooper either. If you think you can explain socialism minus the partisan edge (in your words "objective"), please do so. One thing Socialism is not, it's not a sales pitch. RobS 16:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)


I believe you have principled and considered objections to the acceptance of homosexuality. The current article, however, does them no credit. This site already contains several extensive pieces lambasting homosexuals and those who seek to argue for tolerance on their behalf. It does not need another.

I stand by my characterisation of the term's common usage, though I accept that even in this "weak" form, it contains an implicit value judgement that you find offensive. I feel my final sentence gave fair recognition to this fact and that the current article labours the point unduly. Please consider substantially revising this article, or unlocking it so that others might.

--Robledo 19:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

OK. RobS 20:07, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

No one knows

So I'll try you. Why is Andy protecting all those images? Is it something I can help do? I haven't gotten a response from anyone I asked. Just curious. Flippin 13:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Too much vandalism. RobS 13:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Can I ask, what does that mean? are people stealing the pictures, linking or something? Is there something I can do to help (there are a ton of images) or protect mine when I upload, something like that? Flippin 13:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure; that's all I heard. RobS 13:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Yesterday, one of the pictures on the front page was of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Somebody replaced the picture that was there with an obscene picture of the two of them.--Steve 13:26, 2 May 2007 (EDT)


thank you!! --Will N. 14:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

"Socialist" Britain

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --Olly 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? RobS 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--Olly 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. RobS 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.
People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to any faith or denomination except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--Olly 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism does not respect equality. RobS 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--Olly 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Ignore which points? RobS 16:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
all of them--Olly 16:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Just Want to be Clear On This...

Is it your opinion that the Nazi claims about a planned Bolshevik bloodbath in the wake of the Reichstag were true? Why, then was none of the promised evidence for this conspiracy offered to the German public in the weeks that followed? Why were all of the accused except for Van der Lubbe, (who offered a highly suspect confession) acquitted? --PF Fox 14:39, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I've haven't expressed an opinion on anything. However, be advised, Georgi Dimitrov, who was arrested in the Riechstag Fire and later appointed General Secretary of the Comintern, has answered several long held mysteries with the opening of Comintern Archives in the 1990s. [3] The Fitin to Dimitrov memo, for example, factors into the Alger Hiss case. RobS 14:54, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Is that a "yes, I think the Nazi claims about a planned Bolshevik bloodbath in the wake of of the Reichstag were true" or "No, I don't think the Nazi claims about a planned Bolshevik bloodbath in the wake of the Reichstag were true?" --PF Fox 15:01, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't think nothing -- other than we would do good to have a Georgi Dimitrov entry. RobS 15:03, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I know you "don't think nothing" (which means you think something -- the opposite of "nothing.") Without a direct answer "no," from you, the obvious conclusion is that the answer is "yes," you buy into the Nazi claims about this purported planned massacre on the part of the Communists, even though pretty much every historian and every contemporary observer has dismissed those Nazi claims as a bunch of hooey. Why are you unwillling own up to this outrageous bit of historical revisionism?
I have no views on the subject of a hypothetical. What ever Nazi claims were at the time, it falls into the category of "coulda woulda shoulda". That the Comintern was intent upon World Revolution, I do not think is disputed. The only question now is, as it was at that time, did the Comintern burn it down, or did the Nazi's themselves. And as everyone knows, the Nazis, true Socialists like their Communist brethren, were no big fans of parlimentary democracy, either. And after it got burnt down, it was never restored. As late as 1939 the Nazi's were using the Kroll Opera House for their "parliamentary" meetings, and once the War got started, together with various emregency decrees, parlimentary meetings even got lower priority. RobS 15:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The Reichstag fire is not a hypothetical. Nor is the fact that it was used as a rationale for criminalizing Communism, rounding up Communists and leftists, and beating and torturing them. And as you know, the Nazis were not by any means "true socialists," which is why they got so much support from conservative financiers and members of the military. Or is part of your rampant revisionism now going to be an attempt to sell the notion that Henry Ford was a leftist? --PF Fox 17:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

  • the Nazi claims about a planned Bolshevik bloodbath -- 14:39, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
  • the Nazi claims about a planned Bolshevik bloodbath --15:01, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
  • the Nazi claims about this purported planned massacre on the part of the Communists -- 15:12, 3 May 2007

That's three times you asked about a hypothetical and three times I answsered. Please stop wasting my time. RobS 17:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

There's nothing "hypothetical" about what happened, Rob. Your definition of the word doesn't seem be the same as most people's.
I guess I'll just have to file this away as yet another example of your bizarre revisionism -- alongside your unforgettable claim that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939. --PF Fox 12:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Commendations on your dilligence

Hello RobS. I appreciate you have a hard time here blocking vandals (I don't contribute but I drop in from time to time). You've managed to block 2 of my accounts in the last 10 minutes (allie and jEM) mistakenly believing me to be Icxwxdgx. I only created the first one to point out that Andy's email addie is in the public domain for those who bother to look and the second one got banned before I even posted. Suffice to say, I am not Icxwxdgx and I only logged in to make a valid point about public information.

Keep up the good work blocking vandals though, this site gets far too much abuse.

Frankly, I'm not sure who xcxwxdgx is. Are you sure your not imagining things? RobS 21:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

RobS (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:JEM" with an expiry time of infinite: xcxwxdgx )

What can't speak can't lie, here's the block and reason you put on my unused "jEM" account after blocking Allie.

Oh, was that you? What do you need more than one account at a time for? RobS 22:04, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Ohh, I don't need more than one. It's just that two got blocked in pretty quick succession before I'd said what I intended to. And if you like, feel free to block this one as I won't be using it again, I just wanted to point out that Andy's email addie is there for those who care to look. I'm happy lurking here and watching things develop. It's very interesting seeing how this site is developing and, tbh, I think the sysops do a great job considering the amount of abuse this site gets.

His email address is available in a number of very obvious places, but that it is not a reason for publishing it in a place where he obviously does not want it to be published. Dpbsmith 22:16, 4 May 2007 (EDT)


I’m sorry I’ve just totally lost the thread of the discussion we were having on FISA—I’ve been working on a paper most of the day and I find that now that I have time to pick up the discussion my brain is shot. Maybe you could try to reconstruct where we were and I’ll look to pick up the thread here? Or if you want to start an article on FISA, I’ll be more than happy to help with what I know (which seemed like much more this morning than it does now…). I think that my major disagreement with the last thing you said has to do with your point 2—that while FISA was not set up with terrorists and drug gangs in mind, it is more than capable of dealing with the problems both pose. I think that was what my thought process was earlier this afternoon—but, as I say, my brain is kind of shot right now, I wouldn’t be posting at all but I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you, or the very interesting discussion we were having.--Reginod 23:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

If you'll recall, my basic point was regarding common misperceptions about FISA, the Patriot Act, and domestic spying, all distorted for partisan politcal purposes. So we really have three articles here, FISA, Patriot Act and whatever title we decide on the third one cause it has been revised by several Executive Orders since FDRs original. Why don't we pick up this discussion at Talk:FISA. RobS 00:03, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you

Thank you kindly for unblocking me; you will not regret it :) --JLindon 15:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Good Evenning RobS

( I placed the following explanation in the "discussion" section of the United States Main Page that you stated you were going to review. I copy it for you here also. Hope this helps.)

Thank you for taking the time to review this.

As you can see in the above notes, yesterday, I rewrote / re-arranged the BACKGROUND paragraph that you have listed above. I did not change very much, but simply rewrote what was already there, and made it easier to read, and a bit more logically arranged. I tried to make it read more smoothly. I did that based on the previous comments of the other readers who complained that it was confusing, and rambled.

However, Stile4aly is wrong to state that the paragraph should be split in two. It is quite obvious from reading the original paragraph, that the INTENT of the original writer was to show the "cause and effect" relationship between the first issue ( the transition in governing documents to an "all powerful" US Constitution ) and how the interference / re-interpretation of that ( all powerful document ) US Constitution in recent decades by the current US Supreme Court has caused the second issue ( Church and State ) to become such a prominent and divisive issue in US political life today. Time is important. This country is 231 years old, and for the first 190 years of this country, the US Supreme Court held the exact opposite view on the "Church / State" issue than that which the current Court has held for only the last 45 years or so.

I tried to help the original writer make his case, by re-arranging what he wrote in a more "logical" form.

Next, in regards to capital letters.  ? I capitalized only one word. GOD. Please do not be confused by the current internet / chatroom opinion that "all caps" is yelling. This is an Encyclopedia. It is not a chat room, or a forum !!! The use of "all caps" in an encyclopedia is quite appropriate for the word GOD. The word GOD is printed in "all caps" by most religions, and periodicals to differentiate between the one, all powerful GOD, and the other lesser Gods of Greek mythology, etc. In addition, the word GOD is in all caps in the Declaration of Independence if I recall. Perhaps Mr. Stile4aly would like to re-write it too ?

Finally, there was one sentence that I did remove from the paragraph, you included it above: "generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others." That sentence appears to be a slap, and un-necessary one at that. This is an Encyclopedia!! we shouldn't go around insulting each other's motives.

I hope this explanation helps you make your decision as to what you keep. Have a nice day. Starfleet7 21:08, May 6, 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for responding and giving a detailed explanation. Looks like you've put a lot of work into it. RobS 21:36, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Battlestar Galactica

What's wrong with [[Category:Science fiction]] for Battlestar Galactica? It seems a pretty obvious one to me. Philip J. Rayment 03:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT)


Fella, as long as it's in there, and stays there, I'm happy. ;) --Robledo 18:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Yah, what happened to the stats on homicide? RobS 18:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Your edit to the anti-homosexual violence section is really, really poor statistical analysis. Please trust me on this - I'm going to revert and I (sincerely) don't want to have to make you look daft on the talk page. --Robledo 17:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Go ahead and make me look bad. RobS 17:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

In the spirit of charity and civilised debate, I'm going to give you the opportunity to think about this one for a bit. I'd like you to pay particular attention to this proposition:

For the general population, the FBI reports a violent crime rate of 20 victims per 1000 US persons or 1 in 50 of the overall population. This would seem to indicate, unless the homosexual population of the United States is slightly more than 500,000, the incidence of violence against gays is much lower than the overall population by an order of several magnitutdes.

and work out, for yourself, why the inference you've drawn isn't valid. A good starting point would be the methodologies behind the collection of the two sets of data you're using (Hate Crime stats & the National Crime Victimization Survey).

--Robledo 18:19, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's been considered. But we do need to consider the necessity to supply some context to the stats that refer to anti-homexual violence. The figure of 1171 means nothing without context. RobS 20:34, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Shall we get rid of it then? And what kind of context do you have in mind? I thought my "serious physical attack every 3-4 days" line gave readers a pretty good handle on its reported frequency. --Robledo 17:03, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

We need to compare the incidence of violence against homosexuals with the incidence of violence in the general, or random population. For instance, according to the FBI, no homosexuals have been homicide victims since 2004, and in that year, only 1. Now, the stats show overall 1 in 10,000 homicides occur amongst the general population. So we can safely conclude, non-homosexuals have been vicitms of homicide by a far greater rate than homosexuals, by an order of nearly infinitesimal magnitude. This gives rise to the speculation as to why we should allow this article to have any alarmist allegations that homosexuals are the victims of predation, when in fact the stats demonstrate homosexuals are victimized at a much lower rate than the general population. And further, we must deal with the speculative conclusion that they are victims of heterosexuals, when in fact the evidence leads to a very large gay-on-gay motivated violence. RobS 17:16, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

No, fella, that's precisely the kind of conclusion we can't draw from these figures. The Hate Crime stats refer to people who were attacked because they're homosexual. The general homicide rates you're using for comparison take no account of either the sexual orientation of the victim, nor of whether that motivated the attacker. In other words, the 1 in 10,000 rate applies to gay and straight alike. "Hate" crimes are merely a special case within this established prevalence of homicide.

Am I explaining this OK? --Robledo 17:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Go to the FBI page & compare "bias motivation" with "offender" stats; offenders are classified by race, thus we have no accurate measurement of how many "anti-gay" victims are victimized by gays. It automatically assumes offenders are heterosexual -- a false conclusion without evidence. RobS 17:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

?! That's not what we're talking about. --Robledo 17:54, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so that would lead us to conclude that it is to the general populations advantage to become gay, because you then have a reduced possibility of being the victim of homicide. RobS 17:57, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Personal remark removed Pretty please with sugar on top go back and re-read my reply beginning "No, fella, that's precisely the kind of conclusion we can't draw from these figures." --Robledo 18:05, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

How would you propose we supply context? RobS 18:06, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

To be honest, I'm a little puzzled as to what context needs to be supplied. Revised sub-section of a few days ago:

Principled opponents of homosexuality explicity reject violence and intimidation directed against individuals because of their sexual orientation. According to FBI figures for 2003 - 2005, a male homosexual suffers a serious physical assault somewhere in America every 3-4 days because of antipathy towards his sexual orientation.[16][17][18] Incidences of common assault and intimidation are even more frequent. Occasionally, this violent antipathy leads to murder. [19][20][21]

My intentions were three-fold:

1. Make sure this article contained an emphatic rejection of anti-gay violence.

2. Make clear this is an on-going problem (whilst separating it from principled objections).

3. Point out that this antipathy sometimes has genuinely tragic consequences.

I can't see why (or even how, to be honest) you could take issue with anything in it. I even shifted focus away from the anti-gay murders to try and keep you and RSchlafly on board. --Robledo 18:27, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Once again. and we've been over this several times, the whole notion of "homophobia" was a fraud from it's inception, and has been used to slander and impugn innocent people. We've cleared that up. In examining stats, it confirms the basic premise it is fraudulent. It is further supported by the evidence both the legal and the theraputic professions have rejected the term. The term either remains undefined, or is has been proven it does not mean what gay activists allege it means. And this begs the question, once again, who has been the real victim here? And we have not even broached the subject of gay domestic union violence, nor even discussed the violence perpetrated in such famous cases as Jeffrey Dahmer, Wayne Henley, or John Gacy. RobS 19:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Reparative therapy

Can we unprotect it? I need help writing it, and there aren't enough sysops interested. --Ed Poor 21:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Done. RobS 21:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Social democracy

The article Social democracy may have a liberal bias. Perhaps you could check it. You seem to know a lot about political science. Auld Nick 15:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not concerned about liberal bias, and I've been watching the article. It is very good. RobS 15:27, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

To: Rob, request for collaboration

Dear Rob,

Here is an article I would like to work with you and others in regards to creating a new article: Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution Here is some preliminary material I created to put in the article:

Perhaps, we could put a condensed version of the article in the Theory of evolution article itself with a small tag pointing to the bigger article. Conservative 22:31, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I'll give it a look, but I have to be honest, social science (and not natural) are my strong suits. RobS 23:03, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry to have bothered you. I thought this was a strong point of yours. Conservative 23:20, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I'll be happy to do it, because it does definitely have social, political & educational implications. We have an Alfred Kinsey entry now; Google Kinsey+Darwin brings up 192,000 results. [4] RobS 23:28, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
If you work on it make sure you put footnotes as this will be a contested article. Conservative 23:31, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Hello RobS

Is it possible for you to ban someone..? if so, look at what some guy named "Comradejay" placed on the United States main page. He erased the whole page, and replaced it with curses. Someone else has fixed it, but this guy needs to be terminated.

Starfleet7 14:16, May 10, 2007 (EDT)

User boxes

In future I'll thank you not to interfere with user boxes that I am using on my user page. --Horace 01:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

We had a problem the user who created it; I'm still not done investigating, and I'm not certain what to do with that Template, but I definately do not intend to spend much time deciding what to do with it, or wasting other Sysops time asking their opinion. RobS 01:14, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • No worries! I have no problem deleting any user boxes.  :D --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:19, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
How do I protect it against recreation? RobS

Don't Userboxen fall under the "Castle" category?-Speaker 01:21, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Boxes do, templates don't. RobS 01:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

...I mean, they're indistinguishable. Anything under the "template:user" category is for personal use, so...? Deleting without warning imposes an undue burden on the personal right to a user page.-Speaker 01:24, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Rob, do what we do for deleted pages. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Yasser Arafat

Hi RobS

As "Yasser Arafat" article has been moved to "Yasir Arafat", Could it's "history page" also travel with the text?

Yasser Arafat history page:

Thanks for your reply.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Sure, but I'm not sure exactly how to do that. Do you know how? RobS 14:10, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your interest. I know it is possible but I also don't know how to do it.
--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:21, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
As far as I know, it's not possible. Yasser Arafat was not "moved" to Yassir Arafat. Rather, the text of the former was copied into the latter, and the former turned into a redirect. Histories move when pages are "moved", but not when they are copied.
One solution would be to delete Yassir Arafat (thus losing it's short history and its talk page, but see note below), restore Yasser Arafat to its pre-redirect content, then do an actual "move" from Yasser Arafat to Yassir Arafat. Would this idea be acceptable?
Note: Rather than delete Yassir Arafat, one could "move" it to something else (another spelling, or a lower-case version) and turn it into a redirect to the proper article. This means that its history and talk page would not be lost.
Philip J. Rayment 19:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that would work very well. How wants to do it? RobS 15:26, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
I'll do it. Philip J. Rayment 11:17, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I've done it, although it was not as easy as I expected. Even though Wiki page titles are (or used to be?) case-sensitive, it wouldn't accept "yasir arafat" whilst "Yasir Arafat" existed. So I moved the old "Yasir Arafat" to "Arafat" and made it a redirect to the new "Yasir Arafat" (but had to delete an existing "Arafat" redirect to achieve this!)

Also, I discovered that moving an article to a new name that already exists gives you the option of deleting that existing article, but it doesn't delete the existing talk page to move the new one over it. That required a bit more sorting out.

Anyway, as I said, it is now done. What I didn't do is salvage anything from the old "Yasir Arafat" article to put in the new one; I didn't know (or bother to compare) if that was required. If it is, you can copy whatever's required from the old version of "Yasir Arafat" here.

And the old talk page is here, where I actually copied some of this discussion, which is now hard to find!

Clear as mud?

Philip J. Rayment 11:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Philip, Thank you. I think I've been able to follow it. I'll copy these instructions if we need to do it again. RobS 15:57, 13 May 2007 (EDT)


Yes. Admiral. :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

"Edit war", what's all this fuzz about? I only put him in the category fascists, what's wrong with that?MiddleMan

Show evidence Donitz was ever a member of the Nazi party, please. Or that Donitz ever held, and/or expressed any nazi or fascist views. RobS 18:13, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • He was by most accounts, a person who despised Hitler, hated what he had done to Germany, if memory serves me correctly. Didn't he ignore the order to continue the fight, and scorched earth policy, and sued for peace? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:56, 11 May 2007 (EDT)


The article Denmark says that Denmark has had a socialist economy since the thirties and that Denmark has a per capita income that exceeds that of the United States of America.. That can't be right its impossible for a socialist economy to produce a per capita income that exceeds that of the United States of America. I know noththing about Denmark. Perhaps you do. Auld Nick 12:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Will take a look. RobS 15:02, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Danish per capita - $37,000.
American per capita - $43,500. CIA world factbook. --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?
  • There are only two countries with a higher GNI (Gross National Income) than the United States: Norway and Luxembourg. "GNI is gross national income (GNI) converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GNI as a U.S. dollar has in the United States. GNI is the sum of value added by all resident producers plus any product taxes (less subsidies) not included in the valuation of output plus net receipts of primary income (compensation of employees and property income) from abroad. Data are in current international dollars. This indicator measures the total output of goods and services for final use produced by residents and non-residents, regardless of allocation to domestic and foreign claims, in relation to the size of the population. As such it is an indicator of the economic productivity of a nation. It differs from gross domestic product (GDP) by further adjusting for income received from aborad for labour and capital by residents, for similar payments to non-residents, and by incorporating various technical adjustments including those related to exchange rate changes over time."
  • See the chart, here: [5]

--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:18, 12 May 2007 (EDT)


You have mail. Please check. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:30, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Roopilots6 talk page

Someone placed this from the debate topics onto my talk page: Editing Are there any people who visit this site and contribute to debates that aren’t Christian?? Who ever created the topic should have it on their talk page. I didn't create this but merely made some comments on it. Shall I delete it then?--Roopilots6 18:35, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

The history showed you created it. RobS 18:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
No, I didn't create the topic. I was the first to make a comment on it. I am asking who created the topic?--Roopilots6 18:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)


I reverted it back to your last version after idealogical edits. Take a look. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:50, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Homo sapiens

- Stop using weasel words here, if you want this site to be taken seriously then stop inserting things like "evolutionists and other apologetics of atheism" to replace "mainstream biologists and archaeologists", this is science, not philosophy.

- "Evolutionist" is not a profession.

- Creationism is almost entirely an American thing: the vast majority of European Christians, most Jews and Catholics, including the former pope (1996), have accepted evolution.

- Why did you remove the Hindu section, you could have just renamed it, you know?

- You specifically speak of "human" researchers, do you know something the rest of us don't know?


We have a problem with "mythology and other religions"; it is extrememly offensive and bigotted. As to the Pope, I think you exaggerqate. As to evolutionists, that is what they are. And take this away from this discussion, my dear friend, scientists are not the final arbitors of what truth is. RobS 18:14, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Then change it to "other religions", leave the mythology part out, that's not so difficult is it?

I think it is offensive to those millions of Jews, deists, agnostics and Christians who do accept evolution, to call them "apologetics for atheism".

If scientists don't know how something works, then no one does, it's as simple as that: scientists are truthseekers. MiddleMan

  • All Hail Science! Middleman, I read that same statement in, I believe, my 5th grade Social Studies class. It ain't necessarily so, and I don't reject science. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I think it is offensive to those millions of Jews, deists, agnostics and Christians who do accept evolution, to call them "apologetics for atheism".
If they profess a belief in God, they wouldn't be atheists then, right? RobS 20:23, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, yeah, exactly: you're calling them atheists, which they're not. It also sounds kinda like evo-bashing. MiddleMan

Then they would be evolutionists, and some are rationalists. RobS 20:47, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

"Rationalists, evolutionists and other apologetics of atheism" means that rationalists and evolutionists are also apologetics of atheism, unless the English language has changed these last couple of hours, has it? MiddleMan

No IP?

When you ban people and give the reason as "no IP" what does that mean? --Sulgran 21:16, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

That means CheckUser brings up no IP address. RobS 21:25, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Meanings of words

RobS, in the "Same-sex marriage" article, I'm not trying to suppress your (widely-held) point of view. I wish you'd humor me a bit more on trying to use words with accuracy and precision. And I wish you'd realize that it does not diminish the impact of a statement to say that it is an opinion. In fact, it usually increases it, particularly when the source of the opinion is stated and happens to be credible to the reader.

For example, I think it would strengthen the point if someone were to replace

Some conservatives view the term as a ludicrous self-contradiction, because they believe the legal institution of marriage should be restricted to the union of a man and a woman, as religious marriages are,"

with something like:

Some conservatives reject the term as a ludicrous self-contradiction. Peter Sprigg of the conservative Family Research Council has said "‘same-sex marriage’ is a contradiction in terms."[1]

You may abhor the use of the word "marriage" to refer to the union of two people of the same sex, but it is used that way legally in the state of Massachusetts, in Canada, etc. and two dictionaries back it up as one of the frequently-used current meanings of the word.

By all means, make sure that the conservative point of view receives its proper due in the article, but you don't achieve anything useful by thinking that you can make your wishes come true—your opinions become fact—simply by stating them as if they were, when they are not. Dpbsmith 06:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

  1. Roberts Help In Romer v. Evans Indicates That On Supreme Court He Would Vote For “Right” Of Homosexuals To “Marry”, John Lofton in The American View website, quotes Peter Sprigg: "I would suggest that the argument in favor of same-sex marriage can only be logically sustained...if one argues not merely that men and women are equal in value and dignity, a proposition with which I’m sure we all agree, but that males and females are identical and thus able to serve as entirely interchangeable parts in the structure of marriage. The contention is absurd on its face. Thus, ‘same-sex marriage’ is a contradiction in terms."

Well stated argument. The point against perversion of the term is, "marriage" has always meant between a man and a woman. This has been true for several millenia now (or alternatively 80 to 130 millenia if you are an evolutionist). It is only in the past 10 to 12 years through subversive writings has this confusion crept into the langauge. While the authors of such may themselves be confused about the difference between men and women, and their roles in society, that is not a basis enough for the rest of the humanity to convert to their distorted perceptions other than acknowledging their efforts to change meanings of words, ideas and concepts. RobS 11:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

In the 1800s, the relation between same-sex couples sharing living quarters over long periods of time—Sarah Orne Jewett and Annie Adams Fields—seem to have been called "Boston marriages," so the use of "marriage" for "same-sex relationship" is not as new as all that.
Neither the reality of long-term committed same-sex relationship, nor the use of the word "marriage," are new. What is new is the movement to legitimize them. Twenty years ago you could have called it an "attempt." Now, I don't see how you can, because the attempt has succeeded in some places, including some whole countries. And while you can say that the rest of humanity should not have "converted to their distorted perceptions," the City of Toronto, officially, has done so:
On June 10, 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeals redefined, effective immediately, the common law definition of marriage as the "voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others". As a result of this decision, marriages between same sex couples are now legal in Ontario and marriage licences are being issued by the City of Toronto.[6]
If the City of Toronto calls it "marriage," how can you say it is not called "marriage?"
You can say you do not call it marriage, you can say many people agree with you, you can say that it should have been called a "civil union," you can say it should not be allowed.
But it is legal and it is called a marriage. Dpbsmith 11:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Nazi Germany legalized murder, should we put that throughout all Conservapedia and say it's just a matter of perception, too? RobS 12:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Reverting my edits

Rob, can you please explain the reverts of my edits? I am truly confused how you can in good concious:

1) Write an entry on environmentalists that portrays it as a religion. I respect the fact that the Gaia Hypothesis is out there, and it has religious implications, but it is by no means part of the belief system of most people who would label themselves as environmentalists. I have suggested a seperate article on that phenomenon, but you don't respond, you just revert.

2) The Ralph Nader article was changed by me to remove plagarism. I clearly stated that on that talk page. Is plagarism something that is accepted here?

3) The commentary that liberals ALWAYS do something is a little much don't you think? Always is a very strong word. I am interested in why you think this?

I'm not trying to undermine the conservative tone of this site. I believe everything I've listed above is reasonable requests, and I would like to encourage some dialogue about these issues. That is part of the beauty of a wiki. --Colest 12:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

(1) The environmentalist article has much more information that needs to be inserted; what exists now, is just a broad outline as to what is understood about "environmentalism".
(2) I'll look into the plagarism issue; nonetheless, if Nadar is a "consumer advocate', he is a "self-appointed consumer advocate". You failed to make this distinction.
(3) I'm not certain what you are refering to about the "liberal commentary".
Thank you. RobS 12:38, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
1 - I appriciate the fact that the article will be expanded, and I hope you can appriciate/understand how the current article comes across as portraying a large group one way, for the actions of a minority.
2 - See the link I posted on the talk page. It was directly taken from that article with perhaps 1 word per sentence changed. And furthermore, is there such a thing other than a self appointed consumer advocate? Does the phrase "self appointed" need to be added?
3 - You reverted my edit to Mockery, in which the only thing I removed was a statement that said liberals ALWAYS used it. And I apologize I should have said comment instead of commentary.
It appears from this you aren't even reading the talk page most of the time, just reverting things to the way you want it to be. Please try to take the time to read the talk page and understand why certain edits were made.--Colest 12:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
1)Yes, if we can find some groups or individuals not alligned with various terrorist organizations, and are not aligned with groups like "Environmentalists Against the War", we could use their materials for building sections on what real environmentalism is.
2)If Nadar is to be characterized as a "consumer advocate", then in the interests of full disclosure (to protect our consumers), we must report who appointed him "consumer advocate", and who writes his paycheck.
3)Ok, I reverted that cause it was added by another Sysop and I found some other questionable edits by yourself. You'll probably have to discuss that particular reversion with the other Sysop. RobS 12:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Just a comment

This edit is appreciated, and you're right, it was not a good example. HeartOfGold 15:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. Somehow the idea that someone who rejects God's commandments against stealing is transformed into a "policy" of "redistirbution", and then debates whether or not advocates of legalized theft are "right". Incredible. RobS 15:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
You might want to have a look at this edit, and the associated photo that was uploaded to make the edit possible. HeartOfGold 18:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Cuban missile crisis

I just noted that you reverted a citation to the relative strengths of the USA & USSR. Was there a reason for that? It looked OK to me. Ian St John 16:31, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

It's stated on Talk. RobS 16:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)