Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Etaroced

2007-05-19T01:23:47Z

Etaroced: do you want some help or just ban me?

Uh, I am a sockpuppet of tmtoulouse...............but I feel really bad for you guys, do you want me to, you know make same pages for you? Get some edits going? I could start expanding my articles on statistics, or psychology, write that biology article I was going to do............main.....*echo* *echo*............

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-05-17T15:51:53Z

Etaroced:

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives'''

|}

== ColinR ==

Deleted the archive I created last night for Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative

I just restored it. Colin, I beg of you, please don't start deleting history here, okay? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive was never deleted. Anyone who looks at the page history will realize this, all I did was move the archive out of the mainspace into the correct namespace, leaving a temporarily broken link, which the brilliant editor above me equates to it being deleted. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah? What is this? '''00:11, 10 April 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative Archive 1" (content was: '#REDIRECT Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1' (and the only contributor was 'ColinR'))'''--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:THAT WASN'T THE ARCHIVE!!! THAT IS A REDIRECT. LOOK AT THE FREAKIN' CONTENT LISTED!!! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Read above. Does the system not say it was an archive, Colin? When I cliked the link for the archive I made, it said the page had been deleted. The delete log says you deleted it. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Further, if you did anything to the archive I asked for help on last night, and you were among those who refused, and you came around tonight or earlier today and moved or fixed anything, without telling me, it is just as bad. Yes, you do have to inform, elite one. Still, the links to the archives were still missing on the Conervative/abuse page and the Sysop/Admin page that Philip was into. There were other posts asking what happened to the archives. Further insults will not be tolerated, Colin. You have had your very last warning. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:TK, your comment makes no sense, and you even admitted that I didn't delete the archive links. All I did was move the archives out of the mainspace to their correct spot, something that people have done before (think Sid) and you have no clue what's going on and flip out. I have not insulted you, only asked serious questions, and you respond with false accusations and threats. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Colin, I admitted no such thing. The system said, when I entered the link to the archive I created, that you had deleted it. If you deleted a re-direct, and replaced it, in another "Lone Ranger" stunt, elite one, without posting about, or telling me, you still forgot to replace the links to it! Other people noticed, and posted about it. ''Like I said, those days are over now, doing whatever you feel like, and you have had your final warning.'' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The archive link you created was in the mainspace, where it '''didn't''' belong. Thus I moved it out of the mainspace, only to realize I had moved it to the wrong spot, thus I moved it again to the correct spot (where it is now) and deleted the redirects, since one was in the mainspace and the other was a double redirect (and both were not needed). You accuse me of a lone ranger stunt, but your archiving seems to be just as "elitist" as my actions. Quit with the empty threats and baseless accusations. I'm getting tired of your false claims anytime you don't understand something. And I don't have to tell you every time I do something, you're not my keeper, nor is anyone on here. If you have a problem doing whatever they feel like, why not "complain" to almost every editor on this site. I'm through with this crap, if you have something valid and worthwhile to complain about, then we'll talk. Until then, GOOD DAY, SIR. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hmmm, I could have swore you said earlier you didn't delete anything, but now it seems you say you did. I am getting confused. And yes, Colin, things are changing, for the better, and you will start to communicate, with me, and the other Sysops. I very politely posted, asking for help with the archive, last night, and you didn't see fit to offer to help, like any of the Sysop's should have, that knew how to do it. That is one of your obligations in taking the job. If you didn't know or think that, you do now. I can't do anything to save you now, Colin. Your attitude marks you as someone not really needed here anymore, more a part of the problem, rather than the solution. It makes me sad, but it is now up to Andy to decide. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
''This is a copy of the post from Aschlafly's talk page. TK insisted that I post it here, too.''
{{QuoteBox|Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)}}
As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at [[Talk:Zach Johnson]]. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and sarcasm ==
While this is not abuse per say, it is a question of what is the appropriate conduct for a sysop? I continue to be concerned about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_evolution&diff=95497&oldid=95484 this edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473 this edit] which shows a disrespect for other editors on this site. Is this the type of example that is people are suggesting that be followed? (Yes, I know this is a slippery slope) Please picture a website were everyone behaved like TK has in this situation - not the conservative bias, but the disrespect. Is this the type of site that you (the admins) want to present? I am concerned that the admins are turning a blind eye to the sysops and allowing them free reign - they can do no wrong. This in turn makes it a very hostile and uncomfortable place for anyone who is not a sysop. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I feel uncomfortable here all the time, pretty much the same as at Wikipedia. The only difference is that it's much worse there.

:I disagree with the policy here which permits random newbies to start editing right away. I really hate all the backbiting, backstabbing, character assassination; carping, caviling, sneaky undermining, etc.!

:If it were up to me, I'd block much more aggressively than I have been.

:Maybe I'll just start doing that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to, Ed. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable here, as you are one of our best editors. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes Mtur! ''Not at all like your Sterling good behavior.'' We are appointed to keep the place on-policy, and on-track as friendly to the Conservative and Christian POV, as well as guard against Vandals. Either overt, ''or covert''. Get used to it. You, and others constantly disrespect people whose POV you disagree with. You are just sly and subtle doing it. You don't want to accept this is never going to be run like Wikipedia. Perhaps your energies could be used constructively, rather than just carping about what you don't like, and parroting the party line of those who you agree with? I am indeed sorry if you cannot accept some measure of levity, used to defuse a possibly explosive situation. It must get lonely in the Ivory Tower (that was more humor). Ed Poor, you should chat up the Webmaster, ask him about the situation in IRC with some of these people, it will be instructional, I am sure. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: TK, could you please point to any edits where I have been disrespectful to anyone? I have been 'online' for nearly two decades now (my first experiences were with a 300 baud modem and acoustic coupler to an 8 port BBS chat line) and I am well aware that when there are no body language or voice inflection cues, it is very easy for someone to misinterpret the emotion of the person on the other end of the text connection. Smilies or a j/k can help give a hint about what the person is writing. However, just with real life, if everything is said with such a wink, people begin to not take anything that person says seriously. I remain curious as to how any of these edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=84553&oldid=84515] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=86432&oldid=86373] were designed to be a measure of levity that would reduce the heightened emotions? Or where they written with the intent to enrage emotions? I cannot tell, and it remains up to the individual to determine if they are to see the best in someone or the worst in someone. I do not believe I am capable of writing anything that would have any emotional encumbrance that you would regard as not being insulting (I am not not trying to be insulting in this passage, just trying to state my perceptions) and thus attempt to remove any emotion from what is written. I may have a point of view and an opinion, but getting red in the face and pounding away at the keyboard is something I learned not to do on Usenet a decade and a half ago.
:: I am curious as to how you see this being run, if not like Wikipedia. What are the social norms? What are the rules? There are certainly more rules than have been set down in [[rules]]. When I am comfortable in understanding these rules and I have made the judgment as to if this is a place that I ''want'' to contribute to, then I shall. Until then, I find the community that is in the process of forming these rules to be incredibly interesting. Furthermore, I feel that it is more useful to help the community codify those rules as a place where any user can understand what is going to happen if he or she does something than it would be to go forth and write documents. As it is, there is still a bit of hostility to many of the writers of new material here. If you search [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Mtur&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 my contributions], you will see that I have contributed some to new material - there are a few articles that I've commented with as "rewrite." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*So, your time online mirrors my own, Mtur. I assume we are more or less contemporaries. The joke about Martha Stewart was indeed designed to defuse, however I can see someone who is defensive or indignant in their opinion thinking the comment was aimed at them, and that I certainly didn't want to happen. Maybe you don't watch much TV or know of her. However, you being online as long as you have, certainly know of this old dodge of blind-siding people as you did above, to support the views of those you agree with by making a public post, instead of privately contacting me and asking what I meant first. I have seen much of your work that is to be admired, your manipulative tactics, posted above, are not a part of that admiration. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I have stated [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3ATeamwork&diff=90300&oldid=90283 elsewhere], I prefer all communication to be public (perhaps I should put that on my user page too). As such, it remains difficult for me or anyone else to attribute something other than what I have said to me. It also constantly reminds me that I am in a public place and to be on my behavior - there will always be someone looking to trap me in words if I misspeak. I ask of you, have I shown you less respect or treated you with less dignity than you have shown me in the past? Alternatively, if I was to make the same comments you have made in the past, would I be banned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I don't ban people except for vandalism and the like. I have blocked users, shortly, when I know they are creating havoc, or doing things to marginalize Conservapedia. I certainly have posted several times, quite publicly, in opposition to some Sysop's actions, etc. This you well know. Spirited discourse is how I was raised. I was schooled by Jesuits. So, no, you wouldn't be banned for talk, of course not. I know of only one Sysop who has banned for talking. As I said, I publicly disagreed. But your argument about keeping everything publc puzzles me, from a logic point of view. Anyone can make up anything, and say it came from me or you, if they have a mind to. So to use that as an excuse to actually lessen dialog, seems odd to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The above statement by TK is quite misleading ... While it was quickly reversed when the error was pointed out, TK blocked me without even checking to see if I was the offending user. I think sysops should have the basic skills and knowledge to do a little fact/history checking before running to the block button. I'm sure I'm not the first one TK has blocked by accident, then tried to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Hojimachong&diff=137248&oldid=137232 cover it up] instead of adding an apology comment. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*Jrssr, you have now earned another, not mistaken, block. ''Your statement above is totally false'', showing an edit of mine, where I decided to be more temperate, and not bring up the fact you could have been blocked by Hoji for name-calling, and that any Sysop still could, and implying it had something to do with your mistaken blockage of how long? You are disingenuous, and that will not be tolerated. Blocks do no "damage" whatsoever. You are building red herring non-issues to be inflammatory. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking of NousEpirrhytos ==

I would like a comment on this situation, Nous was apparently banned for "attacks on the Bible" by Karajou, which apparently relates to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name this conversation] in which Nous expresses scholarly disagreement with the concept of Biblical literalism.

Even more disturbingly, users questioning Karajou's actions on his talk page have been informed by User:TK that regular users have no business questioning administrative actions. When asked if ''"Andy's promised freedom of speech excludes questioning or criticizing the Bible"'', user:TK responded ''"Yes indeed, that is exactly what I meant"''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*When quoting someone, Nematocyte, could you please not edit their quotes? Some might think you did it deliberately, to stir the pot, and we wouldn't want that, eh? And if you are going to complain about more than one Sysop, please make more than one header, one for each complaint. Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Do you disagree with the content of my condenced quote? Do you not intend to imply those things? In any case, I am not making a complaint against you, as you have not performed an administrative action in this case, only commented. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ahhh....just another snipe. I see. Very good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you disagree with my summation? Do you disagree that administrative comments on the case are relevant? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For the love of mud, TK, answer the user's questions rather than bickering. Nematocyte is being '''incredibly''' reasonable here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed, I would rather see answers than this pointless "sniping." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, [[User_talk:Karajou#Blocking|this is what we got so far]]. Answers would indeed be nice. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some of the Sysops seem fairly trigger-happy right now. Petrus and NousEpirrhytos were completely undeserving of banning. This along with the un/blocking of AmesG and PalMD give me pause for thought as to what is happening on this site at the moment. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 12:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, if you read some of TK's latest comments, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::According to some of TK's recent comments, one could conclude that this page should be speedily deleted - who are we to question or even criticize sysop decisions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what banning Petrus and NousEpirrhytos was meant to accomplish. It seems to me these bans were pointed at silencing their ''opinion'', rather than promoting '''good faith'''. Is this what I am supposed to take from this? And in the case of PalMD, running off someone with knowledge of the field because he disagrees with your ''opinion'', seems like a fairly poor way to run a site. What are we supposed to think of a site that does this? I know we all hate Wikipedia, but is it a liberal value to allow dissent? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're quoting, here is Karajou's reaction. It can be found on [[User talk:Karajou#Blocking|his User Talk page]] and on [[Talk:Bible]]:
{{QuoteBox|In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did. The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to edit the [[Bible]] article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. I only banned one individual when it started getting sour. This is Conservapedia...it is not "Liberalpedia".}}
:Just copy-pasting it here since it's quite relevant in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: The other person addressed in this is [[User:Petrus]], who also participated in the [[Talk:Bible]] discussion (and who got [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Petrus perma-banned] by TK recently for a similar-sounding reason). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there somewhere else we can post this where it will get a response from somebody, or am I just being impatient? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, this is pretty much the final destination of all sysop complaints. The previous station had been Andy's talk page (but the big box at the top now says to duke it out here and not there), and the only other option would be the Student Panel. And don't hold your breath. I don't honestly expect something to happen (though I still hope so) - look at the other complaints here (and on Conservative's extra-page). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Faith is important to most Americans. Any attempt to undermine faith will be frowned upon here, particularly if directed '''towards''' any particular user. I have tolerated much sarcasm, misdirection, fooling around, and so forth without really being forceful - and been told repeatedly by senior staff that my lenience is not acceptable. I would like to make it possible for liberals or dissenters to participate, because I hate to see anyone marginalized. Believe me, I know how it feels.

::But how many of you whom I have defended have ever expressed a single word of gratitude for all the hospitality you have received here? Go read the story of Jesus and the 10 lepers before you say another word about "abuse". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Two users were banned infinitely for the Bible talk (Did you read it?). THREE users were banned for questioning Karajou's behavior. I was among them, and ironically enough, I got banned right after my cry for help to you. <s>Thanks for your great support here, Ed. And thanks for letting us "liberals" and "dissenters" participate.</s> Oh wait. My bad, no sarcasm on Conservapedia. So yeah. Three people get banned for trying to defend two people who got banned (and are still perma-banned). It's a good thing that I don't really care how often I get banned - otherwise I'd really look the other way the next time I see abuse. And yes, I'm slightly bitter. Please don't ban me for it, I'll possibly get better if I can go a few hours or even days without getting banned. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh we are aware of just how <s>hostile</s> hospitable we have received here. Maybe its being forgotten in all of this but the editors of this site are giving something extremely valuable with our contributions. Without the editors there is NOTHING here, this place needs us far more than we need it. What do we really gain by contributing here? A place to voice our ideas? Not really, wikipedia would be the place to go for that. No, most of us originally came here as contributors. This love it or leave it attitude isn't going to fly. If all of us leave conservapedia we are not harmed in anyway, but if all of us leave conservapedia it is fatal. So who needs who? Who should be thanking who? [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Let us not forget in all of this that a user was banned for idealogical reasons by self-conscious sysop. NousEpirrhytos should be unbanned now, or we need to toss out the conservapedia commandments and just leave it as "All editors are equal but some are more equal than others" and bask in the warming glow of censorship, authoritarianism, capriciousness, and hypocrisy. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll also add Petrus' ban for review. It appears that he was also banned for this, although by another sysop (TK). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==I will just assume bad faith==
on the above issue. since there is no effort to respond, from Andy, Ed or TK. good to know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Myk just got banned for one month for questioning Karajou (see his talk page and Bible talk).'''
:Writing quick, I might be next. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, me too, probably. I just posted on Andy's page. Apparently we can't ask questions either. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Kinda sad that you can effectively be blocked for asking "Why?" after a sysop did something... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. Just...wow. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

(reading up) No effort to respond? Do you have any idea how many pages are on my watchlist? Try leaving a note on my [[user talk page]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ed, I don't think Flippin really meant you, at least I wouldn't include you on the list, you've responded more than any other on that list<s> (by responding, I mean actually responding and not just whining like a little kid)</s>. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==This will probably earn me a ban==
but why was Sid banned by Karajou? Could someone just explain how his actions harmed conservapedia? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Dissent is against conservative values. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::Dissent's not so bad; stupidity might be frowned upon. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::...please tell me that you didn't just call me stupid and that I simply misunderstood your words in the context... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I appologize if/when I (may) offended (with all pertinent disclaimers). I thought the subject had been banned, so trashing him was ok. I dissent from my previous statement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
: re. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]]'s comment: Seconded. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 13:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ed Poor and Reginold==
'''Please keep posts in chron order!'''

Ed Poor banned [[User:Reginod|Reginold]] because he didn't apologize for <s>that offended Ed Poor</s> putting words in Ed Poor's mouth, twice (as stated on the block log), even though a well stated apology is on [[User talk:Reginod‎|his talk page]]. Perhaps I will follow; I can't tell. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*Avoid insults/snipes, stick to the facts, don't become idealogically biased against Conservative and Christian principles and avoid never-ending arguments and reverts, and I don't think you will have a worry. If you don't, you will be counting the days down. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, what I said was ''put words in my mouth twice - did not apologize''. That is not the same as "comments that offended me". Your comment here is tantamount to an accusation. Please clarify your remarks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::He did apologize, though, didn't he? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry that I misrepresented your block log comments; I was focused more on the apology that is quite extensive on his talk page. As for TK's comment below, I see I have been placed on the [[Conservapedia:Abuse]] immediately after posting this message, which is an interesting commentary on [[justice]] on Conservapedia. (I also hope that you all blank your User pages in deference to the Virginia Tech victims as I have.) [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*I would be a mistake to connect dots, Sterile. I have been down the hall, in meetings, since I posted, so I am not aware of you being "watched". Those kinds of comments, made by a Sysop, you would be posting about, calling them unfair, eh? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not going to comment. The environment here is too hostile, and again I fear I will be interpreted. Instead, I think this afternoon when I get a chance, I'll write an article for [[justice]] and get off the 90/10 list, and be proactive instead of defensive. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 08:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor ==
This is what Ed Poor wrote in a debate page "We should just blast you all into smithereens, you humorless bastards! BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!! --Ed Poor 14:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)" Doesn't this warrant a ban? Or can I say bastard without getting into trouble? --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 14:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::That was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Should_some_of_the_Sysops_on_here_Lighten_Up%3F&diff=140624&oldid=140266 here]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
: If I interpret 'BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!!' correctly, as evil laughter, then it would seem to mitigate. Anyway, [[User:RSchlafly]] swore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ASigmund_Freud&diff=133574&oldid=133325 here] to no repercussions, so it would seem that it is condoned. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

*I fail to see swearing at the link provided, Wikinterpreter. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Uh, here, TK:

'But Freud's work was crap,'

--Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

:I intend to follow this up by referring to a female wolf as a bitch. Next month, I'll refer to a male chicken as a cock. Lighten up, eh? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*I someone here thinks using the word "crap" is swearing, I submit you are far too sheltered and unworldly to venture out onto the Internet. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: So what's the point in Commandment Number 3, then? Where do we draw the line? Because if not, then it's a load of ... oh, well I won't stoop to that level. Is this a confirmation that the use of the words 'crap' and 'bastard' is sanctioned by two admins? --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Aschlafly ==
Aschlafly was acting like a bully. He's apparently the owner of this site, so he'll get away with it, but he [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Notice_of_likely_blocking pushed around] me & [[user_talk:1048247| 1048247]] pretty ruthlessly & without cause. When confronted about it, he told me to leave his talk page, and discuss any problems on the article talk page itself, which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Alexander_Hamilton he has not done], instead [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alexander_Hamilton&action=history reverting] without explanation on the talk page. I think this is inappropriate behavior for an admin. As I said, nothing will get done about it, but I think he needs to know that it creates a bad work environment. Of course, I can't tell him that on his page without getting blocked, so this will have to do. I'm new to the site, but already I can tell that. Doesn't that tell ''you'' something?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 13:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I've been here for a couple of months and have nothing but good things to say about Andy. I have created new articles, edited some, suggested news articles for the Breaking News section, etc. In other words, I've made several positive contributions to this site without engaging in the endless debates and discussions on contentious talk pages. I've also been watching Andy's talk page, and I've seen the vandalism on this site as well as the constant badgering that he has to deal with on a daily basis. BillBuck, I have seen your side of this issue, and I disagree. I believe Andy is very tolerant of other editors and I fully support his actions. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 13:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like he's tolerant of people he agrees with. The test of tolerance & kindness isn't how you behave towards your friends. It's how you treat others with whom you differ in significant ways. One of the many remarkable things about Christ was that he treated all men equally; if He had only shown favor & friendship towards His disciples, it wouldn't have been that impressive. Although I'm glad it's been a positive experience for you.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 13:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::I got blocked for writing this, but I stick by it. I don't think complaining about admin abuse is the same as "starting a fight." The fight was started when Aschlafly insulted me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 20:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*You were not blocked by Andy Schlafly, but by Karajou. You personal page is nothing but a biased attack, not some intellectual criticism of Schlafly. Your intentions and outlook are clear. You were responsible for being blocked, no one else, and for no other reason than your picking a fight. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:55, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Look, when you start blocking people for disagreeing with you, how are you better than the Taliban?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 20:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Obviously online wiki's are not the place for you ''if'' you cannot discern the difference between disagreements, intellectual debate, and going out of your way to provoke. I have no dog in this hunt, other than reading your comments, and Karajou's and the others. I have never shied away from criticizing Andy, or anyone, when I thought it due, but you can (and will) do so without keeping at it to provoke acrimony. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

You've not shown your ability to perform the same kind of distinction you ask of me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 21:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, fortunately for me, then, you are not here to judge the actions of Sysops, and there isn't any rule, guideline or Commandment saying you should or could. Stop jerking around, and either be here to help, or I will remove you. You are ignorant of the facts in the extreme, and judgemental to the point of it being laughable. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Separate Complaints About the Poster==
:"Kind of a bully", huh? Where did I here that before....hmmm...was it Chip Berlet, [http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/the_things_peop.html] author of [http://www.organizenow.net/cco/right/propanalysis.txt Introduction to Propaganda Analysis] who "recommends the terms 'bullying' and its variants". Wanna see a few thousand diffs to make the point? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What?! I don't see the relevance.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 14:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:We've heard it all. And the cookie cutter textbook buzzwords and phrases just don't get attention anymore. It's kinda like Pavlov's dogs or the boy who cried wolf, after hearing the same stuff over and over again, eventually you just don't hear it.

:Let me give a real simple example. This page is for sysop abuse. Your opening sentence is uncivil and a personal attack. Why should I read '''''any''''' further? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:01, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I've changed the tone so that the personal attack is gone. I'm sure you'll be interested in reading the rest, now. I think it's sad, though, that you'd ignore criticisms after a while: just like the boy that cried wolf, you might miss it when it's the real thing. Also, since this is the first I've heard of it, it's news to me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 15:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*So, when "caught" you now show your revisionist stripes, change the tone, and want to continue your ad hominem attack? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

Is anyone going to address the substantive complaint? So far only RobS and TK have, and just to suggest a nicer approach (which I took to heart) or mock me (which I won't). Won't someone address the substance?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 18:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*By "substance" you wish to have addressed your totally subjective, personal opinion, that Andrew Schlafly is a "bully"? That is my understanding. Is it correct? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

I mean that he doesn't care what other people have to say. And blocks them when they disagree with him. I mean, you've been here longer than me, so prove me wrong, but first impressions are really hard to shake, you know?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 19:26, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: I appreciate the support here. It's obvious to me that Bill is yet another liberal who may delight in pretending otherwise. Bill, I'm going to check your edits now but if you're violating the 90/10 [[rule]] and don't correct that violation soon, then you will be blocked as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: Follow-up: after a quick look at Bill's edits, I estimate only about 10% could possibly be substantive. Next I'll check those substantive edits (a grand total of 5) and see what they were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:*You forgot to add "Moving on..." Andy. That apparently is another Liberal device to avoid directly answering. :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*He's blocked for three days for picking a fight. He could have handled it a lot better than he did. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:*Aren't there still boards out there that welcome the constant fighting and never-sending debate? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:**Look at his edits to William Rehnquist and Anton Scalia. Not bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=William_Rehnquist&diff=prev&oldid=142314] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=prev&oldid=142318] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm sure those fighting boards are at Wikipedia. When it comes to people here wanting to start a fight, it has to be put down immediately and not escalate. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:56, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*Unlike you or I, Karajou, Andy is used to teaching young students, and that is why he appears (to me at least) to be if anything, overly tolerant of "spirited" discussion of a kind that always seems to turn into personal insults against him, or worse, insults to his family. I guess some here would faint dead-away to learn some of us wouldn't tolerate more than one paragraph of personal insults, compared to the pages Andy tolerates. I do always get a chuckle when sections like this, once the perpetrator is called out, and no longer is free-posting complaint after complaint, they flee. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Okey, I'm bit lost now... This is Administrative Abuse page isn't it? And when people post here it's usually because they had an fight with an sysop. If posting here only gets the complainer to be banned for causing more fighting then what is the use to have these pages? I don't know if the former complainer for example had specially good reason to complain, but he did it quite civil and would have hoped that using these pages for what they are meant to wouldn't have just caused more trouble for him. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:TK's got a good point; many of these are young people are anxious to learn the rhetorical arts, and we can show them how to be effective. It doesn't matter what your ideology is. A look at his contribs is impressive. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*I am lost too. Is it at all possible you are so specious that you cannot tell the difference between someone complaining, and offering totally subjective, context-specific "evidence" to advance what is purely personal opinion, and something that is substantive, and possibly something that is truly questionable? This whole topic is mostly filled with personal opinions, highly subjective complaints, mainly of personal style, rather than specific, verifiable accusations of "wrong doing". It should more accurately be titled "X did something I am mad at, and I want attention!". Perhaps I need to make "rules" for this page, more narrowly defining what is and is not something that rises to the the proper definition of "abuse", since so very few seem to know what the word actually means. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I think thats an good idea TK, as i must admit that i thought i did, but seams some people have very different opinion on this subject. Mayby some clarification would be good for everyones sake. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, I don't like fights; that point is clear. I also don't like people escalating those fights, and I have put a stop to the fights, usually by blocking. I honestly don't like doing that. But a fight must be put down before it gets out of hand; it cannot continue from the main page and escalate here, and that comes from having seen it and stopping it in police work. The individual causing such a fight needs to follow the rules for this site as well as the sysops (myself too) need to follow some good rules on stopping the fight. If TK can make those specific rules, I will follow them. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*Karajou, I certainly hope you were not thinking anything I posted was directed at you, because it most certainly was not. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::No, I didn't take it that way. My thinking was that what you said was meant to improve our own performance overall. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Karajou, I hope you realise that a fight involves at least two people and you have blocked just one. This page is for people who wish to make a complaint about something, and wish it to be looked at fairly by a third party(ies). Blocking one side of an argument doesn't immediately solve the argument (if anything it is much much worse leading to alienation and frustration). Regardless of who the complaint was directed at the argument should have been looked at objectively not just torn apart by any member of the "I love Schlafly" squad. Looking at what happened, it seems that the complaint was totally disregarded with preference to a set of ad hominem attacks on both the argument and the complainant. Surely you must see this defeats the whole point of this page? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Swearing==

There are levels of "swear" words. I got "bastard" from a divinity student who later became academic dean of a small theological seminary. He translated the Latin ''Nihil illegitimati carborundum'' as "don't let the bastards wear you down."

Clearly, much of the "abuse" complaints here are actually protests against policy itself - not reports of policy violations by staff. It's part of the general adolescent angst endemic amoung Liberals. All authority is evil and suspect and deserves to be torn down.

The hypocrisy of this is the utter disregard of the evils of slavery in the Sudan, the double standard of enjoying electricity and fresh food in the West (while Africans should go without), and the neglect (amounting to censorship) of the totalitarian abuses of socialists.

What the heck is that all about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:They hate the word "conservative" in Conservapedia; they think that this is a free and open wiki; they think that no one is in charge; they think that this should be a free-for-all in which whatever it is they believe in should be shoved down our throats, and if we prevent that, why they cite free speech violations. These people have to be told otherwise, one way or the other. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed, might be better on a debate page, but I'd love to address some of these topics. First of all, I do not feel a special existential angst similar to that in my youth, but I have seen many abuses of authority over the years. This has led me to believe that not all conservatives are bad people, but that people in power can, if unchecked, use it poorly (no pun intended ;-) ). If you look at the case of Fargo, ND, they raised their speeding fines by about 100% a few years back. That's all well and good in theory, except it violates the state law, and now they are going to have to pay the overage (based on five years of tickets) back. The authority issue comes in because they did so knowingly---they would not let defendants see a judge, they increased the overall number of tickets by almost half again and they have now spent (no kidding) thousands of state taxpayer dollars trying to keep my sister-in-law from getting back $86 in wrongful fines. Have you ever heard of a traffic ticket that has yielded over 300 man-hours of legal work by a state?

::Abuses like these are why I became a liberal. I have seen many such instances and realized that too much authority in one person's hands makes for a dangerous situation. I regard the evils of slavery as a real threat to our security--more so than Iraq.

::Not all authority need to be torn down, but it ''deserves'' questioning and a watchful eye. I don't hate George Bush anymore than I hate Mother Teresa (I didn't hate her either), but asking tough questions is my duty as a citizen.

::Finally, I think you have a point when you say many of the questions here are about policy. I won't spend all day on bias, but it is very difficult to measure bias. Writing it into an article--possible, but how do please the more conservative among you as well as the more moderate? Once that dis-equity is designed, can it really be self-sustaining? I am here to see if any of you can actually do what you intend, or if eventually, you will create something nearly identical to wikipedia without blocking, protecting and guarding everything. Good comment Ed, but I hope you appreciate my position. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*I hate to be the one to break it to you, Flippin, but the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives. And if they self-designated themselves as such, they are wrong. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, I don’t think this is a particularly liberal way of thinking (look at how conservatives treat liberal authority figures on this site)—I think it is human to want to see those you disagree with have less power (how many Conservatives do you think would support warrantless wiretapping in 2009 if a Democrat is in the White House (especially if Hilary is there), and how many Liberals who opposed it when Bush did it will change their minds?). So, yes I have no doubt that there are some liberals on this site who would like to see the current people in charge have less power. I freely admit I’d like the religious conservatives to have less power here and those with more libertarian leanings to have more (I want people who agree with me to have more power).
:But I also think that part of the problem is that the rules are unclear. I might have thought that the words in question above amounted to foul language and some sysops may have enforced the rule that way (say I used those words to describe my opinions of YEC how long do you honestly think t would take before that earned me a ban?). There are clear double standards on what is acceptable here, at least in terms of how some of the rules are enforced, and that bothers people especially those who get the bad side of that deal.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:*I agree, Reginod. Religion and political issues bring out the worst in people. Those of us who have had a "professional" involvement positively cringe at the thought of getting involved with "the public" about political things, as most are at best disingenuous and at worst totally unscrupulous, in discussing all things political. Not to mention most citizens, either here or the UK, are woefully ignorant of the whole process. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:18, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Reginod, the example you cite is an extrememly poor one; warrantless wiretaps have been '''legel''' since 1938. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt authorized by Executive Order wiretaps on American citizens, and he approved '''foreign''' Intelligence doing it. Why isn't this commonly known? Why liberal media bias, of course. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree. FISA requires a warrant for wiretaps and outlines exactly under what circumstances a warentless wiretap is allowed. FISA post-dates 1938 and so any conflict between it and a 1938 executive order would come out in favor of FISA, more importantly FISA is a law, not an executive order, and laws have more legal weight than executive orders. But, I think that strays from the main point I was trying to make.
:::I gather that you support President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps in the War on Terror? If Hillary Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards, or any other Democrat) were elected President in 2008, would you support her use of the same program? Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap any phone that she or her administration deemed potentially relevant in the War on Terror? My suspicion is that the answer there is no (if it isn’t I think you will find yourself in the minority among Conservatives). My point was that Conservatives tend to support Bush’s use of the program because his views and theirs line up—they like a person with their views in power, and trust him to use it well—whereas Liberals tend not to support Bush’s use of the program because they have different views from him—they don’t like a person with views that different from their own, using that much power. Likewise most Conservatives would not support a Liberal President using the exact same program, whereas most Liberals would find themselves supporting a Liberal President using that same program. Humans, Liberal or Conservative don’t like people who have views different from their own welding power (that was my point).
:::I personally don’t want anyone using such a program, since I tend to be distrustful of the police power of the state in general (but that’s not especially relevant, I just figured it was only fair to be frank about where I was coming from).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::FISA only applies to US counterintelligence operations, it does not cover cooperative sharing agreements between NATO allies. When NSA suspects an American, through a cooperative sharing agreement, NSA can request British MI-5 to perform the wiretap, hence it is not a US federal government agency performing the tap. Once MI-5 retrtieves the material, through an international intelligence sharing agreement they share the intelligence product with NSA. A similiar program exists in Great Britain with a reciprocal arangement. You will recall, it was very recently reported CIA tapped Prince Di's; stop and think momentarily, what use would CIA have in tapping Princess Di? None, whatsoever, except British intelligence couldnt do it themselves, and it certainly would be a scandal if revealed. It was a reciprocal cooperative sharing agreement. Forget FISA. It does not apply in the issue of so-called "domestic spying". FDR made legal prior to WWII, and has been legel ever since. All the other stories about FISA are simply disinformation to hide the true basis of the how the program operates, and how its done legally.

::::As an aside, an item of Impeachment against Richard Nixon claimed he authorized domestic wiretaps on US citizens; if this is an impeachable offense for failing to protect American citizens rights, imagine what FDR did, in peacetime, authorize domestic wiretaps '''''against US citizens by a foreign government'''''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don’t know the full details of the program getting all the media coverage—I was under the impression that it didn’t involve the kind of information sharing that you describe (I am under the impression that you are quite right, if it was the sort of behavior you describe it would be legal). But, as I said, I think that is a side point.
:::::For the record, let me be clear I don’t want any President (or any President’s administration) having the power to tap phonelines without some form of oversight from the judicial branch (I’d prefer something stronger than FISA, personally) -- Bush, Nixon, FRD, Clinton, you name them I don’t want any of them having that kind of power (the police power of the executive is incredibly prone to abuse and I want it at all times to be checked by at least one, and preferably two, of the other branches of our government).
:::::Let me get back to my point—would you want, should she become President, Hilary Clinton’s administration to have the power to wiretap phones of Americans without any judicial oversight? I assume the answer is no, because I assume most people don’t want those ideologically different from themselves to have that much power.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::The point is, it has been legal for nearly 70 years now, and it would probably take revamping the NATO Charter to make it illegal. FISA had weaknesses, (1) it assumed all countertintelligence was directed at foreign governments; (2) while it made provisions for Americans acting as agents of foreign governements, it made no provision for counterintelligence agaisnt non-national entities like drug cartels or terrorist organizations; (3) its provisions for industrial espionage committed by non-governmental multinational corporations were ambiguous. In short, the whole Patriot Act & FISA Acts have nothing to do with the established procedures for domestic spying, and have been distorted by members of Congress and media allies for partisan politcal purposes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I will happily continue this discussion elsewhere, but not here (see below). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Go to the discusssin page here; perhaps we can begin [[FISA]] out of this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::First of all it isn't president bush deciding who to wiretap, and who not to wiretap. Secondly, I would support the same program with a democrat as president. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 13:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Let me clarify I was using “President Bush” as a “controller-for-controlled” metonymy[http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/lexicon/MetonymiesInEnglish/WhatIsAControllerForControlled.htm] —if that was a source of confusion I apologize.
:::::I think you are in the minority (conservative or liberal) in supporting such a program under both Republican and Democratic presidencies, but I applaud your logical consistency. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives" How you could no thank boggles the mind. Maybe self-deceit is not just a "liberal trait." Sometimes I think you just make broad pronouncements to sound important. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:09, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*That is just the point, Flippin. We Conservatives find that all people are important, unlike Liberals. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Wouldn't it be nice if we started from the assumption that all people are good-natured and mean well, rather than starting from our preconceived notions of what we expect people to act like. After all, there is a political spectrum, there are people who don't consider themselves as "strongly liberal" or "strongly conservative," and who remove themselves from the political system because of the bickering between the extremes on both sides. Furthermore there are anti-abortion anti-gun law folks out there. Not every person neatly fits into one category or another. That we start out with an assumption that person will act or believe because of a label is truly sad (shame on all of us), and worse, if we start with a label on ourselves and create our belief system with no internal introspection, that is far more sad. God or nature wouldn't haven't given us brains if we weren't to use them. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 15:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with all of this; when someone crosses the line into activism coordinated and aligned with the extremes we may be able to make a judgement then. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:34, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

----
'''Getting off topic'''
We're going to have to end this debate here, and choose another page (a talk page at that) for this discussion. This page is supposed to be for abuse of admin/sysop authority, and should remain as such...so, if everyone pleases...(it was a good debate, by the way!) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:This was a good debate, and one of the reasons that we '''have''' discussion pages. Debate helps sharpen our awareness of the distinction between positions, and even sometimes what the similarities are. That will help us write better articles on the topics touched on, in the debates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== False accusation by TK ==

At 9:04 am sysop TK left a rather bizarre maasage on my talk page

:''Tea....

:''Do you enjoy it? I like Oolong best of all! Now explain yourself. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:04, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Rather puzzled by this, I responded in kind.

::''Yes, tea is nice. I drink it because I find it quite relaxing. I recommend Mate, although it requires the proper equipment to enjoy fully. Thanks for your interest. Nematocyte 04:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)''

However, shortly afterward I was blocked for "sock puppets", with the following message.

:''Well confession is good for the soul, don't you know? Sorry, but it was the wrong answer, and you and your sock are going on vacation. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:09, 9 May 2007 (EDT)''

Around the same time a user with zero contributes appears to have been blocked for infinity for "being a sock of nematocyte". I've never heard of this user, and I certainly am not using it as a sock. I work from a series of publically accessable machines, which could potentially explain TK's mistake. However, that doesn't excuse that no attempt was made to check the truth of the matter, or the general lack of civility used by TK. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*Are you complaining about a lack of civility to you, Nematocyte? Or to some potentially unknown user who you are "protecting" and fighting for? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, I've never heard of the user and have had no contact with them. It makes no personal difference to me what happens to them. But it would seem the correct thing for you to do would be to apologise to the both of us for your mistake. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 04:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well it wasn't a mistake, that is the problem. Suffice to say you are still here, and your statement, based upon nothing factual whatsoever, that no attempt was made to check it out, is false. It is our perogative and charge to protect this site. If mistakes are made, so be it. But it is wrong for anyone to assume we don't check, and aren't doing the best job we can. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::My statement is based on my first hand knowledge of what is going on at my side. Namely, that contrary to your claims, I do not have a sock puppet and never have. As far as I'm aware that's 100% factual. May I ask what "evidence" there was to the contrary, and what measures ''were'' made to check it wasn't a mistake, and the reasoning being your rather cryptic questioning on my talk page? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 04:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*My post was to let you know, if you did indeed make the puppet, that we knew about it. That's all. When a user fails to repond in a timely manner, and doesnt even bother to email, that doesn't tend to make us think they are on the up and up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::I had gone home for the day, nothing more sinister than that. If it was a matter of timing, what was the "wrong answer" comment about? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*No denial and a talking about tea. Nothing more sinister than that. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:12, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::It was hard for me to deny something that I knew nothing about. Remember, all you left on my talk page was a bizarre question about tea, not an accussation. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, my question about what "evidence" there was, and what measures were taken to ensure the veracity of the accussation remain unanswered. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, you owe Conservapedia users a full explanation of what happened. Nematocyte's accusations are heavy. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 06:32, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor sysop needs a refresher in net ettiquette ==

I have been on this site for nearly 3 days. I have submitted one article and was in the process of submitting a second article when it was deleted by Ed Poor with no notification. This site's email notification is broken so I can't get an email confirmation sent to me no matter what email address I use so I could not contact him directly. Now I find that my IP is blocked because Ed Poor is upset that I asked for an explanation under his talk comments.

What kind of site is this? Well, as a new user I'm not impressed. I am VERY conservative and a loyal person to the consevative ideology I thought this site was actually a place where openess and conservatism would be respected but I guess I was wrong... [[User: PatrioticAmericanCitizen|PatrioticAmericanCitizen]]

Okay - let me try a different approch - how do you inquire about a sysop that shall remain nameless to ask about an IP block when you can't mention a sysop by name because they think it is a "personal remark"?

Your rule says - "You must be civil. No bullying.
Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions. There is a difference between intellectual discourse, and attacking someone for what they believe. Wikipedia condones bullying and mob rule, we don’t."

You say no bullying but isn't using an IP block bullying in it's own right? It's an honest question that deserves an honest answer....

{{unsigned|PatrioticAmericanCitizen}}

I have no idea who you are asking that question of, Patriot, but IMO, no, it isn't. It is standard practice at most all websites. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I was asking it of Ed Poor without mentioning his name because on two occasions when I tried to obtain an explanation from him about his behaivior, I got an IP block as a result. I understand the "standard practice" reason for IP blocks in general - but deleting or modifying articles (real articles not liberal vandalism type articles) without any discussion whatsoever with the person who created them on any website is wrong. As a new user to the site, I was extremely upset at being treated in this manner. Especially after working very hard to write an article that is keeping within what I felt was the spirit of the type of articles that conservapedia.com would want on their site....I really really really really want to help this site develop if I can - I can't stand the leftward slant on wikipedia. If that particular sysop would have just said something to me before he went and did what he did - this could have been avoided. That's all I'm saying. There, I feel better now :) Now back to our regularly scheduled program....

[[User: PatrioticAmericanCitizen|PatrioticAmericanCitizen]]

==I Second This==
For the past couple of days I have spent many hours researching and writing articles about British Comedy of the 50s 60s and 70s. I wrote articles on Carry On Films, and Tony Hancock, one of the all time British Comedy Greats. In doing that, I created articles about Sid James and Kenneth Williams who were in the original Hancock's half hour series along with Hattie Jacques. I spent a long time writing synopses of Hancock episodes, and finding clips. Some of these entries were about 2000 words in length.

I went on to write bios of some of the other Carry on stars including Barbara Windsor and Charles Hawtrey. Ed Poor saw my entry on Hawtrey, which touched on the fact that he was very camp and a noted homosexual, a fact well known and totally uncontraversial. He saw this and not only deleted that article without any discussion whasoever, but then went on to delte the whole body of work, on the grounds that "we dont want a whole load of articles glorifying the homosexual lifestyle". If he had read any of the articles he would have realised that (a) Only Williams and Hawtrey were homosexuals (Williams always claimed he was celibate AND tortured himself for being gay - hardly glorifying it), and (b) Neither Tony Hancock nor Sid James were homosexual, and the other two were women, and (c) The Tony Hancock article was unchanged from when it had been copyedited by Philip Rayment

Interestingly, Ed Poor also removed an article on Hattie Jacques which I had not written, but merely linked to one of my articles from it.

All of this I believe is Abuse. Abuse of Power, and abuse of contributors who contribute their work in good faith. There is a system for Articles for Deletion OR even articles for speedy deletion which Ed Poor seems to be totally disregarding and thus behaving in a completely high-handed and unreasonable and totally arbitrary manner.

The work that I contributed has now disappeared and I do not have any copy of it. I feel totally aggrieved and if one of my work colleagues had behaved in this manner I would be taking out a grievance procedure against him. I would vote that he be suspended from SySop-ship until he learns some modicum of self-control and reasonableness

--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 06:28, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*All contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here. Next time, keep a backup copy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: The more important question, I think, is this: do sysops have any sort of responsibility to use an AFD process? I don't mean that we need to have Wikipedia-style bureaucracy here, but I can imagine feeling miffed if you removed a bunch of things I wrote in good faith without at least giving me a chance to defend them. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 20:14, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*"Feelings" are good. Healthy even. Just so long as they don't take over for logic and intellect. If something isn't appropriate, Administrators have no other obligation than to remove it. Yes, sometimes that is unfair, unfortunately. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I think the whole point that SeanTheSheep was trying to touch on was that the material was completely uncontroversial, was written in good faith, and deleted unilaterally. That's not unfairness, that's Wikipedia-style bureaucracy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:53, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*I think the whole point of this, like WP, we have people who don't even know all the facts, and certainly didn't want to learn them, posting their opinions. Especially Sysops, talking about another, ignorant, totally, of the background. Oh well, people think it is their "right" to talk, even if they don't bother to know the facts, so who am I to point out that is wrong? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::And the point about this is that the evidence on which a sensible decision could have been made has been removed. I still want to know on what basis Sysops are granted license to summarily remove articles without discussion. Clearly if someone creates a ''Llama Sex'' article as a spoof or vandal entry then that can be summarily removed, but to remove a bona fide article ''forever'' with no discussion just on the say-so of one person seems to me an illegitimate use of Sysop powers.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 05:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*And that is all well and good, Sean, however Andy has granted us that authority, as the Owner of this site. So, your opinion, which is real to you, and your truth, isn't for the site owner. ''Therefore, in matters here, that decision has already been made, months before you came here.''. For the future, I might suggest, instead of posting here, you first try to resolve the matter personally with the Sysop involved, better through a private email or IM, that is how we prefer it done here, no matter what your experiences might be with other wiki's. If that fails to gain results, and you still wish to pursue the matter, contact another Sysop and discuss. Finally, failing those methods, post here. Hope this helps. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::So Sysops have the powers to unilaterally remove articles without discussion, and that by your own words "you first try to resolve the matter personally with the Sysop involved", in other words, do some behind-the-scenes negotiation. The whole process here seems remarkably anti-democratic and un-American in essence. The whole Conservapedia enterprise is beginning to look to me as if it had been imported form some dark recesses of [[George Orwell]]'s imagination.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 06:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well you are either incredibly naive, or misinformed. All of the American Congress and politics in this country works like that. Bills are introduced, negotiated behind closed doors, then brought to a public vote, and up until that vote, accomodations and changes are continually made, all in those "dark recesses" you talk about. It seems to work, as we are indeed the oldest enduring Democratic Republic in the entire world. We pride ourselves here at CP at not being like Wikipedia, where possibly good and valuable editors such as yourself, are not called out and subjected to public ridicule by other users, who may or may not have more expertise on the article in question. Is that your idea of American? Disagreements between users are better played out without that public stage, unless and until a resolution cannot be reached. Those prefering it otherwise, I suspect of liking public drama and "pot stirring" which on any site is counter-productive. In any event, I have explained to you how we prefer it to work, so unless and until you contact Ed Poor, and ask for his thinking, no action will be taken on this complaint. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Three points: (1) At least any bill which is introduced gets to be seen and can be discussed by someone, can be discussed in an open forum, and not deleted without trace unilaterally by a group of arbitrarily chosen Sysops. (2) In addiiton, who are you to decide whether or not I would or would not want to be subjected to public ridicule? By submitting my owrk, I open myself to what you call ridicule, however, I call it peer review, and it is the principle on which all Wikis are based, whether you like it or not. That argument is non-sensical and disingenuous (3) When I asked Ed poor for an explanation I was blocked for "arguing".--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 07:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'd wish Andy to take a position here. You, TK, have received much criticism for your harsh actions, comments and threats (usually by self-admitted liberals, I agree). In my humble opinion, you are too quick in some of your actions (blocks, comments). In addition I don't like your threats "you have been warned, next time..." or your "Andy has granted this and that authority". I really don't know what powers you have, but I see only you using them. For example, I don't see Ed Poor behaving like you. More to the point, I don't see Andy behaving like you. It is entirely possible that before every move you make you consult with Andy. But as I said, I'd wish Andy to take a position here. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*What you are actually saying, Leopeo, is that you have seen his expressions before, you don't accept them, and wish it to be stated once again, for drama's sake. Have you looked at the CP guidelines, at all? [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines]] As for Ed, read the complaints above, he seems to stand accused by others, like I am by you. There is a certain element of user here, who does not like the way the place is run, and wishes it to be more like Wikipedia. I can assure you Conservapedia never will. As for Andy, he reads and sees more here than I ever will, and it is my experience he posts when he wants to. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, I have read the Commandments and the Guidelines (while I don't agree with the early-blocking guideline, but that is my problem). I know that Ed too has been accused (and I don't agree with all his actions). But, in my probably biased eyes, your actions and words stand out. I accept and understand how Conservapedia is run. But I certainly would prefer more humility, self control and acceptance of others from you, TK, personally. I apologize of accusing you personally, because you have never done to me anything of those things I accuse you of.
::Funny your comparison to Wikipedia. I thought threats and arbitrary blocking of users were not one of the ways to be different from WP. I am just asking Andy to take a position, he is not obliged to! :-) And for what I know, you may have an agreement with Andy that you are his 'sword', that is his 'hawk' side. But it would be better if it were clearly stated. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL. Andy has wielded his sword often, and as you are around longer, will see that. What some take as "threats" are warnings. Some would prefer that we just block them, I prefer to make known to a user when I see them headed in the wrong direction for CP. What you see as "arbitrary" might just not be, unless you had full access to facts. Most everyone who is a Sysop has heard from Andy when someone is blocked for reasons he doesn't like. Likewise, he is a good leader, and spreads around kudos as well. We have disagreed about actions, privately, and respect each other enough to admit our mistakes (on those rare occasions we make them). Conversely, Ed and I agree about 90% of the time as well. I readily admit he uses a more erudite manner, most of the time, than I do. I am blunt and direct, a rather rare commodity in today's world, IMO, and certainly not every one's cup of tea. However, I am fair. Not so much when people are evasive. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::If you are fair, then why do you not answer the questions posed against your integrity in some of the sections above? [[User:RDre|RDre]] 10:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::RDre, you have not edited in three weeks or taken part in this discussion, yet appear here to impugn TK's integrity. This may be regarded as incivility and trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It was a valid question, regardless of his edit history; that was an ad hominem comment. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Banned from IRC channel ==

TK banned me from the #conservapedia [[IRC]] channel for no apparent reason, and he has declined to offer any explanation:
:Any particular reason you kicked and banned me from #conservapedia? --Jtl 02:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:47, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:And what is that reason? --Jtl 02:49, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Be patient. All will be explained, and soon. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Like all those other mysterious big changes you keep talking about that are coming soon? Why won't you just answer the question and explain your actions? --Jtl 02:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
He had two perfectly good opportunities already to give a clue why, and has edited the site since that last question was posed, but he hasn't answered. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 03:52, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL. And now what? You posted here? Give me a break. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:49, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes. "This is where you can report abuse by Sysops." I have no illusions anything will be done, mind you, but you are abusive and I'm reporting it. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 12:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== name-calling by TK ==

Now, TK has called me a [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TK&diff=163885&oldid=163757 "terrorist"]]. ''much'' lesser insults have resulted in bans for other users. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 12:31, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's true - I remember when a user was banned for life for calling someone a 'baby'. Last time I checked, babies weren't plotting to destroy the social fabric of American society. What's with the double-standards? --[[User:WWillis|WWillis]] 12:33, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::What is this ice thing?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:37, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*A vandal group, Doctor, errr, Professor. No worries. Users above have been blocked. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:*How'd you know who is in the group "ice"? Seems mighty strange. May I postulate that you are having another night of the long knives? [[User:Scutter|Scutter]] 11:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scientology Page ==

Why was the scientology page deleted? [[User:Scutter|Scutter]] 11:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:Because the whole page was built as bait to watch the puppets dance, and one of the puppets has been alerted to the consequences of playing with scientologist, so hide the evidence is the best bet. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 11:51, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:As You Like It

2007-05-07T19:26:27Z

Etaroced:

==Do we really need the whole stinkin' play on here? ==
C'mon. Is this an encyclopedia or an anthology? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't like your attitude on this website flippant. Anyway, by having the whole play on here it removes all biases from it because people are able to interpret the play however they like. --[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 15:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::That isn't what the project should be about. Encyclopedias do not list the text of all things they talk about AND this is the only entry like this on the site AND it is way too long. I didn't ask if you liked my attitude, thank you. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: How is having the entire material here less biased than say... Project Gutenberg? http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1121 Having the material here is likely to have interpretations added to it and the biases associated with those interpretations than linking to a source that has public domain text to begin with. You ''might'' be able to make the argument with works that need translation and the bias with translation (but then, you would need to do your own translation rather than use someone else's), but that is not the case here. The danger is in attempting to reproduce the entire collection of data already done at other projects without adding anything to it at all. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Guys, compromise. Why not add something like [[As You Like It/text]] and link to it from the front page. Then have the front page about the analysis of the play, as in, actually encyclopedic.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 15:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Just because this is the only entry on this site doesn't mean it should be removed. It just means that we should be putting up more plays in their entirety. Also, this is a discussion page and so I was discussing your attitude, I don't need permission to do that. Maybe I should go ahead and make a debate page on Flippant's attitude. --[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 15:21, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I think we are all in agreement spyder that you need to chill out. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:22, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::What advantage does putting the full text of the play on the site offer over linking to a place where the public domain material is already hosted? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Etaroced, why do you speak for the entire website? Who is this "we" you speak of? Yourself and speaker?--[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 15:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::So far, Flippin, Speaker, Mthur, and I. Thats pretty much everyone active on this page. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:26, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think it's rude to deliberately misread Flippin's name, Spyder.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 15:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:As You Like It

2007-05-07T19:22:37Z

Etaroced:

Prisoner's dilemma

2007-05-07T19:11:46Z

Etaroced:

== Introduction ==
The '''Prisoner's Dilemma''' is a classic problem in [[Game Theory]]. It has the paradoxial outcome that members of a group will consciously steer towards a sub-optimal outcome in certain scenarios.

<div style=float:right; padding: 20px">
{|style="border-collapse:collapse"
|
|
!colspan=2 style="padding:10px"|''B''
|-
|
|
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|don't confess
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|confess
|-
!rowspan=2 style="padding:10px"|''A''
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|don't confess
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: 6 months
B: 6 months
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: 10 years
B: free
|-
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|confess
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: free
B: 10 years
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: 2 years
B: 2 years
|}
</div>

The game is usually phrased in terms of two suspects, both of whom have been arrested, and offered a bargain. If both stay silent, they will both serve 6 months in prison for a minor crime. If one of them confesses, this provides evidence of a major crime. The confessor is rewarded by being let off, and the other suspect will serve ten years in prison. If both confess, they will both serve two years.

It is obvious that the best outcome (the [[Pareto optimum]]) for the group would be if both prisoners cooperated and stayed silent: Six months for both prisoners. However, in the "default" setting of the Prisoner's dilemma, we assume that the prisoners are not given the chance to work out such a strategy and that they are interested in their own wellbeing first.

Prisoner A will now analyze his options:
*If Prisoner B chooses "don't confess", Prisoner A's best choice will be "confess": A gets out of prison immediately.
*If Prisoner B chooses "confess", Prisoner A's best choice will be "confess", too: 2 years is better than 10 years.
(The case for Prisoner B is symmetric.)

Using this reasoning, both prisoners will choose "confess", even though it is not best result.

The strategy "confess" is a strictly [[dominant strategy]]: The choice of the Prisoner B does not change the way Prisoner A will act. The "confess/confess" scenario is also the only [[Nash equilibrium]] in this problem.

==Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma==

The Iterated Prisoner's dilemma is when the basic game is played multiple times (sometimes infinitely many times). Here, co-operation can be a Nash equilibrium. This requires that each player pays attention to what the other player does on previous "rounds", and punish or reward the other player as appropriate.

In 1980 Robert Axelrod put out a call for experts in game theory and computational science to send in algorithms for playing an iterative Prisoner's Dilemma. He proposed to have all submitted algorithms compete in a tournament to see which one was the best. A total of 14 algorithms were submitted, ranging from immensely complicated and computational intensive to extremely simple. The results were published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution and as it turned out the simplest and smallest algorithm won the tournament. It was developed by Anatol Rapoport out of the University of Toronto and it was called "tit for tat". The "tit for tat" strategy is to cooperate the first time and then on all subsequent times the strategy is to do whatever the opponent did on the turn prior to the one you are on. While subsequent algorithms have been developed that can best the "tit for tat" strategy it remains the most computationally efficent. Because of this it has been proposed as the strategy that humans employ in social interactions.

An additional strategy that is often followed and debated is the "Grim Trigger": that is to say, cooperate until the first defection, and from then on out, defect every turn. Grim Trigger tends to work only when there is informational exchange.

== Relation to International Affairs: Nuclear Detente ==
<div style=float:right; padding: 20px">
{|style="border-collapse:collapse"
|
|
!colspan=2 style="padding:10px"|''B''
|-
|
|
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|defect
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|cooperate
|-
!rowspan=2 style="padding:10px"|''A''
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|defect
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: +1
B: +1
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: +5
B: +0
|-
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|cooperate
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: +0
B: +5
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: +3
B: +3
|}
</div>

The Prisoner's Dilemma can be used to explain the awkward situation of exact nuclear parity. So long as a first-strike is possible, and the first-strike would eliminate the chance of retaliation, the players are in a "Prisoner's Dilemma," and, as noted above, are incentivized to defect.

Much of Cold War policy, then, was at preventing a Prisoner's Dilemma situation. For example, the retention of American nuclear warheads in untraceable submarines, and the retention of Russian arms in untraceable rail cars, prevented the incentive of the first strike, and kept the parties locked in a situation where cooperation remained the best strategy.

Nuclear "escalation" could destabilize such parity. For example, the development of MIRV ('''M'''ultiple '''R'''e-entry '''V'''ehicle) warheads placed Russia briefly ahead of the US. Similarly, American development of an effective nuclear shield would have "won" the game, and was greatly feared by Russia, and contemplated as a reason for a first-strike were its completion imminent.

The "game" as studied by political scientists is displayed to the right, with the traditional values.

== References ==
*[[Mutually Assured Destruction]]
*See Thomas Schelling, "Strategies of Conflict."

<references/>

[[category:mathematics]]
[[category:philosophy]]

Prisoner's dilemma

2007-05-07T19:03:40Z

Etaroced: Its computationally efficent, and very good, but there are better that have been developed since it emerged

== Introduction ==
The '''Prisoner's Dilemma''' is a classic problem in [[Game Theory]]. It has the paradoxial outcome that members of a group will consciously steer towards a sub-optimal outcome in certain scenarios.

<div style=float:right; padding: 20px">
{|style="border-collapse:collapse"
|
|
!colspan=2 style="padding:10px"|''B''
|-
|
|
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|don't confess
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|confess
|-
!rowspan=2 style="padding:10px"|''A''
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|don't confess
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: 6 months
B: 6 months
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: 10 years
B: free
|-
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|confess
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: free
B: 10 years
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: 2 years
B: 2 years
|}
</div>

The game is usually phrased in terms of two suspects, both of whom have been arrested, and offered a bargain. If both stay silent, they will both serve 6 months in prison for a minor crime. If one of them confesses, this provides evidence of a major crime. The confessor is rewarded by being let off, and the other suspect will serve ten years in prison. If both confess, they will both serve two years.

It is obvious that the best outcome (the [[Pareto optimum]]) for the group would be if both prisoners cooperated and stayed silent: Six months for both prisoners. However, in the "default" setting of the Prisoner's dilemma, we assume that the prisoners are not given the chance to work out such a strategy and that they are interested in their own wellbeing first.

Prisoner A will now analyze his options:
*If Prisoner B chooses "don't confess", Prisoner A's best choice will be "confess": A gets out of prison immediately.
*If Prisoner B chooses "confess", Prisoner A's best choice will be "confess", too: 2 years is better than 10 years.
(The case for Prisoner B is symmetric.)

Using this reasoning, both prisoners will choose "confess", even though it is not best result.

The strategy "confess" is a strictly [[dominant strategy]]: The choice of the Prisoner B does not change the way Prisoner A will act. The "confess/confess" scenario is also the only [[Nash equilibrium]] in this problem.

==Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma==

The Iterated Prisoner's dilemma is when the basic game is played multiple times (sometimes infinitely many times). Here, co-operation can be a Nash equilibrium. This requires that each player pays attention to what the other player does on previous "rounds", and punish or reward the other player as appropriate. One of the best strategies in the Iterated Prisoner's dilemma is the "tit for tat" strategy. The "tit for tat" strategy is to cooperate the first time and then on all subsequent times the strategy is to do whatever the opponent did on the turn prior to the one you are on.

An additional strategy that is often followed and debated is the "Grim Trigger": that is to say, cooperate until the first defection, and from then on out, defect every turn. Grim Trigger tends to work only when there is informational exchange.

== Relation to International Affairs: Nuclear Detente ==
<div style=float:right; padding: 20px">
{|style="border-collapse:collapse"
|
|
!colspan=2 style="padding:10px"|''B''
|-
|
|
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|defect
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|cooperate
|-
!rowspan=2 style="padding:10px"|''A''
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|defect
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: +1
B: +1
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: +5
B: +0
|-
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|cooperate
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: +0
B: +5
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|A: +3
B: +3
|}
</div>

The Prisoner's Dilemma can be used to explain the awkward situation of exact nuclear parity. So long as a first-strike is possible, and the first-strike would eliminate the chance of retaliation, the players are in a "Prisoner's Dilemma," and, as noted above, are incentivized to defect.

Much of Cold War policy, then, was at preventing a Prisoner's Dilemma situation. For example, the retention of American nuclear warheads in untraceable submarines, and the retention of Russian arms in untraceable rail cars, prevented the incentive of the first strike, and kept the parties locked in a situation where cooperation remained the best strategy.

Nuclear "escalation" could destabilize such parity. For example, the development of MIRV ('''M'''ultiple '''R'''e-entry '''V'''ehicle) warheads placed Russia briefly ahead of the US. Similarly, American development of an effective nuclear shield would have "won" the game, and was greatly feared by Russia, and contemplated as a reason for a first-strike were its completion imminent.

The "game" as studied by political scientists is displayed to the right, with the traditional values.

== References ==
*[[Mutually Assured Destruction]]
*See Thomas Schelling, "Strategies of Conflict."

<references/>

[[category:mathematics]]
[[category:philosophy]]

Talk:John E. Jones III

2007-04-21T06:16:19Z

Etaroced:

Conservative your an embarrassment. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 02:13, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Signed an order prohibiting appeal???? And your a LAWYER???? Wow. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 02:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:John E. Jones III

2007-04-21T06:13:04Z

Etaroced: New page: Conservative your an embarrassment. ~~~~

Conservative your an embarrassment. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 02:13, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Quality

2007-04-21T01:07:43Z

Etaroced:

I am sorry to say that I must give Conservapedia a failing grade, on the basis of this survey. Only 5 out of the 10 randomly selected articles was any good. Two more were merely definitions of the term (25 words or less). The rest should be deleted.

If we can get to 90% we call start bragging. So let's do it! {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

:Fantastic, Ed tries to conduct a survey to help this site, and Aschlafly finds a way to minimize the importance of the survey and throw out baseless arguments. Concise does not necessarily mean short. Me thinks Andy is confusing an encyclopedia with a dictionary. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 13:55, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[Biblical criticism]] ==

Was it [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_criticism copied from CreationWiki]?

Probably not, but, darn it all, TerryH should have clearly indicated its provenance on [[Talk:Biblical cricicism]], currently a nonexistent page. Even if it is 100% valid, which I'm guessing it is, without a statement of origin and authorship this article has a quality problem in my opinion.

The CreationWiki article is the work of exactly two contributors, [http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Biblical_criticism&action=history Tsommer and Temlakos]. The Conservapedia article is by TerryH. The Conservapedia article is almost identical to the last revision by Temlakos and does not seem to include recent changes by Tsommer, so very likely TerryH is Temlakos and this is a dual submission. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== I question the methodology of the study ==

How were the "random" articles choosen? Random page link? If I preform the same thing, with say 20 random page links I get a WHOLE lot of rubbish, nothing approaching 50 percent "good" I think this wasn't truly random. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 21:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-16T02:08:44Z

Etaroced:

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

:Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution ==

I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and '''it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article. '''

'''Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:'''

"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution]

'''Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:'''

Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as any "change over time" in the genetic composition of a population....

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines evolution as a "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution</ref>.....

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." <ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html</ref> Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref> Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause [[macroevolution]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref>

'''MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:'''

I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==References==
<references/>

:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Talk:Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Conservative has once again taken it upon himself to delete an entire article comprising hours of work. I have corrected my link above, as he has moved it to the talk page, however the talk page is no longer connected to an article.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Restore of edit ==

After the decision was made, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=96126&oldid=96125 this edit] removed one of the referenced works. The Origin of Species is the text that started this all. It would be remiss to not include a link to the book for people who want verify references and quotations. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: A response to this would be appreciated by many of us. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution decision ==

Can we take from this a general principle; that before criticizing something, we should always first explain what that thing is? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I 2nd this motion. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== TOE ==

Why don't you semiprotect the article, so that newly registered or unregistered users are unable to edit (as they are usually the ones behind vandalism) but registered users can? It's really not the best decision to only limit it to the sysops '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 08:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Scorpion on this point. There are a lot of editors here who wish to help improve the article. It is nice to see a decision finally made and hope that it does heaps of good for the site. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Age of the earth ===
Panelists: if you're still watching the Talk:Theory of evolution page, then you might have run across the following dialogue:
<blockquote>
This site is a joke and doing this goes against my better judgement, but I will add my tuppence-worth. Radioactive dating of metamprphic rock will only give a date for the metamorphic event. All information is lost regarding the original date of the rocks formation as there is too much movement of isotopes through the mineral structure. In non-metamorphosed igneous rock, there are clues in the mineralogy and chemistry that a geologist would use to mark isotopic movement in or out of the mineral being dated and would, therefore, be aware of the potential for inaccuracies. All radioactive dating now uses isochron methodology to remove the possibility of error. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up isochrons and discover how they are used in modern geology. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:The RATE Group have already thought of that. They discuss isochron dates extensively. Isochron dating ''does not'' "remove the possibility of error." This is another example of [[your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Oh dearie me. The RATE group anomalies are produced by flawed experimental data. Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous). This was never done by RATE. For example, RATE geologist Steve Austin has stated (Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe) that the samples he took came from four different lava flows and an extracted phenocryst.
::Austin knows he will get the wrong results this way. In Austin, Steven A., 1988. "Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods," in Impact #178, he mentions that this kind of false isochron is well known and cites (Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons pp 145-147) on the matter.
::But truth is not the objective of these creationist groups. They generate propaganda in the form of pseudo-scientific articles that fool the layman into thinking that there is something suspect. To understand what is going on requires an in-depth understanding of the science that most people do not have. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

Ladies and gentlemen, you need have no doubt that Steven A. Austin and his colleagues thought of every issue that Mr. Splodge mentioned--and furthermore, Mr. Splodge is probably passing on misinformation from Talk.Origins. If you want some detailed explanations, then may I suggest this article:

"[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=%28Talk.Origins%29_Isochron_date_of_young_Grand_Canyon_lava_is_excessively_old&oldid=41870 (Talk.Origins) Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old]." ''CreationWiki, The encyclopedia of creation science''. September 7, 2006, 00:26 UTC. Retrieved April 14, 2007.

Mind you, I don't suggest that Mr. Splodge is originating a fabrication. I merely suggest that he thinks he has a club with which to deal the ''coup de grâce'' to the young-earth position, when in fact he has a bruised reed. I submit this to you so that you may take it under advisement in deciding the direction of the article [[Theory of evolution]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Macroevolution article - request a ruling ==

I am writing to you regarding the current [[Macroevolution]] article. I find the current article unacceptable and given your stated position on the [[Theory of evolution]] article I would like you to rule on this subject.

Currently the article has these statements:

"Paleontology, developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the empirical evidence for the known patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution."

Next the article has a section entitled:

"Methods of Macroevolution"

This of course assumes that macroevolution occurred.

If you could rule on this matter it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I am going to revert back to the non Pro-evolutionary theory version. I would appreciate it if the article critical of macroevolution were kept and the article kept protected. We don't need to be double minded on the macroevolution and theory of evolution issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: It is a skeleton of information with only links to outside sources. The author takes no position on the merits. It is, altogether, neutral. What could possibly be wrong with it? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Referring conflicts to the panel is supposed to be a last resort. What efforts have you made to resolve your issues with the editors in question?

:I urge the panel to reject outright any case presented to them before every other avenue has been exhausted. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I back Tsumetai on this. There has not been adequate (if any) attempt to resolve the issue first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I concur with Philip and Tsumetai. Along with missing the point of both "encyclopedia" and "wiki", the user has refused to engage in any other dispute resolution avenue. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[Adult stem cell]]" ==

I believe there is a bias inherent in this article that has been undefended. It currently strikes an un-encyclopedic tone which I have tried to remedy to no avail. CPanel, please inspect [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adult_stem_cells&diff=107840&oldid=107836 this comparison] to tell us which version is more encyclopedic, and more neutral.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[homosexuality]]" ==

I am also submitting the article on [[homosexuality]] for review by the panel. The allegations are threefold. First, it is utterly offensive, sending the message that homosexuals are individuals on the "outside" of a society that condemns them, when it is not the case. This offensive characteristic of the article is doubly damaging, as bigotry is evil for its own sake, and for the harm it causes anyone who may ''be'' homosexual, upon hearing the outrageous claims of the article. Second, the citations on the article are poorly sourced, explained, and blown out of proportion to deliberately exaggerate the medical "harms" of homosexuality. I suggest that the Panel engage in a full review of the cited sources, in comparison with other sources with which I will provide them. Third, the article is not "family friendly." It encourages a small-minded view of the world that leads to bigotry, hatred based on immutable characteristics, and on a simpler note, the diseases it describes, etc., are objectively not something that someone would want children to view, which I understand is the main goal of this site. I have tried to address these problems on the article since day one of my involvement here; rather than get caught up in another edit war, which is unproductive, this is a more responsible track.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I say it should be deleted for violating commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== What happened to my request? ==

1. What happened to my request that you explain your bizarre decision in relation to the Theory of evolution page?

2. Could you explain your bizarre decision in relation to theTheory of evolution page? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOP/Adminstrator Hojimachong is making big pro-evolutionist changes in the article now ==
'''''Statistics are inherently liberal''''' --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Admistrator Hojimachong is now making big pro-evolutionist changes in the changes in the [[Theory of evolution]] article as can be seen by this edit: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=109823&oldid=109791 The panel clearly said they did not want the direction of the article changed. Hojimachong seems to think the panel's decision is irrelevant and that Hojimachong is the one to decide. I do not think this is the way things should be done. I do think something needs to be done about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:For the love of a higher power, they aren't "pro-evo", they're statistical facts. Statistics (i.e. "scientists agree that the ToE is valid") aren't evil. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Please take your alleged evolutionists "facts" to Wikipedia where they have a much lower threshhold in terms of what is considered a fact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::: LOL! Conservative, take a math class. Learn the definition of "statistic". It's an ''indisuputable fact'' that the godless, liberal, atheist scientific community has a virtually unanimous consensus about this evil, godless theory called "evolution". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The irony is almost too much to bear. It must really irk you that no one is actually reading your, uh, diatribe, but that thousands read the one on wikipedia. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Biology

2007-04-11T23:44:45Z

Etaroced: what is this and how do we write an ARTICLE?

Uh, what if I wanted to write an article about biology, what am I suppose to do with this? [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 19:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-04-11T20:12:03Z

Etaroced:

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The bible is not valid research in any matter scientific, and should be removed from ALL articles pertaining to actual science. However the bible is relevent to many other subjects and in my opinion should be cited, however should not be taken as absolute fact. -SJ

::::The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The Bible scientific? Where was I when this was decided? Also you can't use it as a historical information source as well as it has many conflictions within itself. For instance the see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#Variations_between_the_genealogies Genealogy of Jesus]. Definately not historically accurate. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm not going to use as a source of Biblical information anything from Wikipedia. As for the Bible being a reliable source of info both historical and scientific, that was decided long before you were born. And we are going to use it here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:26, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biased, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You know, basically doing what all of you could be doing at Wikipedia if you didn't prefer secession over improvement. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. furthermore 1,2 and 6 seem to say similar things. Number one says things must be verifiable. Number two says that you must cite sources - which sounds similar to saying they must be verifiable. Number six says that you mustn't post personal opinion - but if what you are posting is verifiable and sourced then it shouldn't be personal opinion anyway.
-
- An example of a page which contains unverified, un-sourced personal opinions in the page on "liberal" which has no less than 19 such statements. I'm not saying they're not true - simply that they don't obey commandments 1,2 and 6. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: ''Cite a source'', ''Must be verifiable'' and ''No personal opinion'' can be argued to be separate subjects. However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject. Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements. A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle. A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain '''what appears to be''' a document's replication. But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website. People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia. The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind. So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, OK. They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them? There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically '''not''' acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a source which must not be copied from, Wikipedia. But that probably wasn't your question. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
NOTE: Aschlafly comments on his Talk page:
:Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
So that would seem to settle it for the time being. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

* I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here! Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You might want to '''bold''' text the line:
====Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.====
[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or you might go a step less and state it as:
*Do not copy from '''''Wikipedia''''' or other non-public domain sources. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to propose a condition to this to develop the growth of the project- That articles, especially those from wikipedia can be copied, but once applied to articles here, should be '''Heavily edited''' by us to remove any liberalisim apparent in the article. This would develop the quality of pages already created, and doesn't violate Wikipedias GDFL. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Wikipedia's Policy on Verbatim Copying]. In browsing the site I have seen that a lot of articles are one-liners. Implicating something like this could greatly the quality of the pages already running.[[User:Xsophos|Xsophos]] 05:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong, wrong, wrong.
:Unfortunately, what you're proposing '''most definitely does''' violate Wikipedia's GFDL, in '''two ways.'''
:First, the GFDL does not allow re-use of GFDL-licensed content ''unless the copy is also licensed under GFDL.'' Since Conservapedia does '''not''' license its material under the GFDL, Conservapedia '''cannot''' use GFDL material whether verbatim or modified. Ditto Creative Commons or other "free" licenses.
:Second, the link you cite says clearly that simple verbatim copying of an article article is allowed ''only with restrictions.'' You seem to be focussing on the "allowed" part and conveniently ignoring the restrictions. Three of them are:
::*"You may not add, remove, or change any content or links within the Main Text..."
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation '''worse,''' because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
:All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object.
:However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the sanction of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL really might object in some serious way.
:P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to ''allow'' people to provide information that is "free" but to ''preventing'' exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. I just thought putting it here would be a good interim measure if it's ''not'' going to be on the Registration page soon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Against Proposal:
How would this be of any use? If anyone wants to vandalize this wiki then they easily can. And if you start banning people with user names like mine (trekie9001) than people will just sign up as RichCheese or some other such "real" sounding names and it won't make a bit of difference. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm with Mtur on this one. Accessing a protected computer means in or using someone elses logon info (same sorta thing). And the important part of the statute is obtaining anything of value, simply by editting information, which this website was created for, does not cause anyone to lose money. As I mentioned in my post on the talk p [[ USC § 1470]] I'd consult a criminal lawyer before making sweeping threats of legal action. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This is laughable - you guys actually think anyone will take you seriously about those vandalism charges...but I guess you take yourself so seriously you started another version of wikipedia that is doomed to fail / be run by right wing loonies anyway.

While you are right in saying that some will vandalize pages regardless of any threats of prosecutions, you are wrong in saying ''no one'' will take these threats seriously. If we follow through with our new rule, I am positive that vandalism and obscenity will decrease significantly. Obviously, you underestimate this site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 12:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you overestimate this site. Not only is it incredibly easy to hide your IP address or even use a public computer, but I think that you would actually get laughed out of court if you attempted to take someone on for posting anything on this website. The internet has been around for a decent ammount of time now and I'm pretty sure that very few people have gotten busted for "vandalizing" websites. You probably wouldn't even have standing in court. ('''Since you probably don't know what standing is you should go look it up on Wikipedia...since you guys seem to be missing the page)'''. If you did they could defeat you on whether or not what they did was vandalism under any of those legal definitions.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm kinda with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia has been around for how many years? And how many court cases have we seen on this basis so far? There must be at least several thousand cases so far, assuming that things work exactly like Andy says. My assumption is that, if Wikipedia hasn't managed to eliminate the vandal problem, Conservapedia won't magically eliminate it, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia forged new ground, that does not mean that Wikipedia DID IT RIGHT. A Wiki's quality could be said to be no better than the quality of its least editor. For wikipedia this means any person on the planet. A required registration is a step up, and though it might not be sufficient, it is a step toward quality improvement. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It "could be said," but that wouldn't make it true. I don't know how to measure exactly how well Wikipedia "works" or how "good" it is, but I would say it works very well and is very good. I would also say it works ''surprisingly'' well and is ''surprisingly'' good, because it is much better than most people (including me) would have guessed, based on a description of how it operates. There are some pretty interesting social dynamics in play there. I don't know how well ''anybody'' understands them. Wikipedia articles are ''much'' better than the quality of its poorest editor. In contrast to, say [[Homosexuality]] here which is exactly as good as the quality of its sole editor. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Then there is the issue of foreign vandals; I noticed they could report vandals to their employer. As far as Canada goes, sharing such information with anyone other than the police would be a violation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA for short). You see in the free world, we have the right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty. You would have to provide information to the police and allow them to conduct the investigation. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::While I agree that cites need to be done in a coherent manner, I'm not such a big fan of the MLA system. What's wrong with traditional foot- and end-notes? The Wiki software supports that kind of referencing already. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 18:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That is also a correct way to cite a source; foot and endnotes have been in use for years with no problem. What I said above is not written in stone, but there must be some sort of standard guide. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Trollish Language ==

"in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia" is an unverified statement and one in a highly combative tone. If you wish to create a resource rather than simply attack other people, perhaps something constructive would be a good idea. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Prosecutor ==
Frankly, I'm very curious about the site and very much appreciate TRUE conservatism. However the sheer ridiculousness of this site is overwhelming. TO think that you could provide my IP address to my local prosecutor (snicker) AND expect them to do something about hurting your feelings or violating some internal code is actually very amusing. You are far more likely to have my prosecutor (here called a Crown Prosecutor, but try the RCMP first because they refer eveidence) call you and ask you to stop harrassing them. Just silly.
:this is not harassment, it is law enforcement. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::It still begs the question of how such enforcement would be enacted. The original commenter has mentioned a Crown Prosecutor and the RCMP, so presumably is Canadian. Therefore, the cited title of the US Code cannot be applied if this person's log-in and edits are indeed coming from outside the U.S. I imagine that strictly speaking, the FBI would be involved since this would cross national borders, but I have to say the chances they and/or the RCMP would actually do anything about it are probably vanishingly small. Given the difficulty that usually obtains in extraditing murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or any other undesirables who flee US jurisdiction, I suspect electronic vandalism would be so far down in the ground clutter as to not even register. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article. ==

Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] article.

Here is commandment #1:

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I think we need to specify that verifiable means you provide a footnote. For example, I believe the a [[Scopes trial]] article is poor because it has few footnotes. I think it would force Conservapedians to do better work if "verifiable" was clarified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Providing a footnote isn't enough ... you can find articles that will support any topic if you search hard enough. All references should be verified and ideally backed up with other sources. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.

On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Furthermore - you would have to show it is vandalism. Imagine trying to prove that a non-creationist but factually correct post was 'vandalism' in a court of law. I think it may well cause a laugh or too but certainly no penalty.

== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==

As written on [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]].
===For===
#[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

===Against===

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT) see my note on the comments page. http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2

== Enforcement of the commandments and abuse of power ==

[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] was given a 2 hour ban after making exactly [[Special:Contributions/Alloco1|two edits]]. The first was describing himself on his user page, the second was asking if an unattractive picture was chosen of [[Hillary Clinton]] on the article talk page and implying bias. What commandments did he or she violate?

[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] was given a 1 week ban after engaging in a debate with the sysop [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], by that same Sysop. No neutral party was consulted and attempt to engage Conservative in discussion was stifled.

"These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia"

There appears to be a disconnect between the commandments and the enforcement of the commandments and it should be addressed if the site is to be respected. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Get used to it. Hypocrisy is the the lifeblood of ALL politics, and this is a political site. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment Proposal ==

Checking over Aschlafly's [[User_talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] it seems like that has become the dumping ground for... well for everything. This is counterproductive both for Mr. Schlafly and for users that are accustomed to finding comments in the appropriate article or user talk page. And it certainly seems to be annoying. So perhaps there should be some manner of commandment regarding the use of user:talk pages as it appears to be a blockable offense. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think it should be left as a disclaimer on individual User Talk pages. I got a ban warning for posting sarcasm on Aschlafly's Talk page, but I wouldn't have anything against that on my own talk page. Restricting activity on such a wide level because one or two people feel that they are being flooded strikes me as counter-productive.
:I'd rather suggest that the admin team organizes its processes so Aschlafly doesn't get flooded with EVERYTHING. The creation of the Abuse page is a good start, but there should be a few (non-commandment) policies about where to report what. Right now, the only widely known policy is "If in doubt, ask Aschlafly". That's the real problem.
:Aschlafly could (for example) put this at the top of his Talk page:
{{QuoteBox|This page is not the universal Help Desk. If you wish to complain about an article, do so on its Talk page. If you wish to report abuse, do so at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. If you want to call for Admin Review, do so (Conservapedia: Admin Review). More generic problems can also be handled by other Admins, please try to distribute the load evenly.}}
:Just a quickly created example. It would be the first step to educate the casual editors about what goes where. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think if bans are going to be threatened, then the policy has to include banning as a consequence. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, yes. However, I think/hope that people don't REALLY get banned just for poking an Admin. That would have a very chilling effect on the overall mood (more than it has already). So I assumed that the real reason for Aschlafly's ban warnings is just a sign of stress in the face of a flooded Talk page. So if we fix that, we don't have to set up strict rules about what you aren't allowed to say on (User) Talk pages. Conservapedia already bans users over little things like content disputes, no need to make things even stricter.
:::But if the ban warning policy really stays like this, it should of course be reflected here. In particular, Rule 6 would have to be altered quite a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Un-American Spelling ==
I am wondering why conservapedia feels threatened by, say, british spelling of words vs american spellings. I like to use the british spellings because my computer says it is spelled incorrectly, yet i still love America. A paradox, isn't it? Still, perhaps we should choose the correct dialect in America to use on this cite. Otherwise, someone could point out the british spelling is used in some parts of America, and thus be considered "American," and therefore be able to use it. I personally am partial to the Mid-west.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 10:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia is rather unusual in allowing and supporting a mix of usage styles. Most U. S. print publishers would specify a style manual calling out U. S. spelling. Most U. K. publishers would specify a style manual calling out British spelling. When a U. S. work is republished in the U. K. or vice versa, one of the publication steps would be copyediting the work to conform to local usage. A good example of this would be the first Harry Potter book, in which even the ''title'' was changed for the U. S. market. Conversely, I don't know if they would do this any more but I remembering reading a British edition of ''The Grapes of Wrath'' in which the Okies were talking about the difficulty of buying "a gallon a petrol" for their car.

:99.9% of all print publications mandate that spelling conform to whichever side of the pond they're on, and nobody thinks twice about it. If Conservapedia wants to say "We're an American encyclopedia," this shouldn't in itself raise any eyebrows.

:Wikipedia's policy is, of course, a very pragmatic response to the problem of producing an ''international'' English-language encyclopedia that is edited completely by unpaid volunteers who can't be ordered to use a uniform style and can't be assigned the job of copy-editing everything to a uniform style.

:My guess, and ''it's just a guess,'' is that something like this could have happened. Suppose one day a student typed in something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_record Phonograph record], misinterpreted what happened, thought that Wikipedia had '''corrected''' what he had typed in, and told a teacher "No, the right name is 'Gramophone record,' Wikipedia says so," and the teacher overreacted.

:Is there a legitimate concern about (say) U. S. high school students using Wikipedia as a learning resource and thereby acquiring incorrect spelling habits? Let me put it this way: Conservapedia's emphasis on this point seems grotesquely exaggerated, but I, at least, see the point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hate speech ==

Awhile back in [[Talk:Fred_Phelps]] the suggestion was made that hate speech should be prohibited on Conservapedia. I believe that it is time to present this as a suggestion for a commandment, especially when taken into context of [[Talk:Homosexuality]]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please Define Hate Speech. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:huey gunna getcha]] was blocked for implying the mass killing of homosexuals at [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]] --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Preaching God's word is not hate speech. Only homosexuals believe so. It's part of their agenda. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::RightWolf, you make the baby Jesus cry.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I believe the best definition would revolve around [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot bigotry]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No it is not. People committing sodomy are not in a protected class. Please don't try to hijack the righteous freedom train on a deadly detour from Selma to Sodom. being born Black is not a sin. Engaging in sexual perversion is. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, right. Because we all know that homosexuality is a choice<nowiki></sarcasm></nowiki>. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::In that case, many people on this site would be blocked. Most Christians regard homosexuality with extreme prejudice. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He went on a long rant about how creating a "cure" for homosexuality is an awesome idea. He then said "If genetic tinkering doesn't work, rifles rarely fail." Tell me how that is not hate speech. It's [[Nazi|Nazism]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am merely quoting from the bible. I realize that it's "vouge" and "sylish" to accept homosexuals. You can tell it to my baby brother, who was kidnapped and raped by a homosexual when he was 11. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Because if one individual in a group of tens of millions does something, then all of them must be bad. Hmmmm... brings to mind Eric Robert Rudolph, doesn't it? Does this mean that because one Christian did it, they all must be bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Also, in regards to RightWolf, aside from the fact that he makes the baby Jesus cry with his bigoted, homophobic, hatemongering remarks, homosexuals are in a protected class, as a "discrete and insular minority" according to the term defined in ''Korematsu'' carried forward in ''Lawrence'' and ''Loving''. The law is not on your side, and thankfully, neither is most of America. I'm with Hojimachong. Hate speech will further drag this site through the mud.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not entirely true. In the state I am in, sodomy is a Class A misdemeanor and inducing acceptance of sodomy to a minor is a class 3 felony. Lawrence vs. Kansas has not been accepted here where minors are concerned. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::You also should remove the references in the homosexual agenda about "supressing biblical teachings which condemn homosexuality" if this is the view of the majority. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does a law regarding minors have to do at all? Regardless, I'd like to see you cite this alleged "law" that classifies sodomy as illegal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, he's probably right about his "state" having a law on the books banning sodomy. Georgia didn't repeal its immediately after ''Lawrence v TEXAS'' either. However, the sodomy law in his "state" will never be prosecuted again because any conviction is now ''per se'' unconstitutional. I don't know where you come from, RightWolf, but Supreme Court precedent is binding on all lower courts and states. It's not optional.
: That said, I am deeply sorry for your brother, who was raped by a homosexual. No doubt there are gay men who are bad men. However, there are straight men who are bad men too. Being gay doesn't make you a rapist anymore than being straight makes you a rapist.
: And finally, sodomy laws protecting minors are still in place, just like statutory rape laws still exist...-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe in the First Ammendment, so any rule should be calefully thought out and clearly defined. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Does the first amendment apply to the administration of a website? I'm no lawyer, But I don't think it would. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech. It is perfectly acceptable to censor anything on private property. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== 4th C, (use of AD). ==

I've noticed an excessive use of 'AD' in contexts where it is rarely used, and in most instances, it's also being used wrongly. See my comments in [[Talk:Democratic Party]]. BC is used consistently to indicate pre-AD 1 dates, and not quite so often for early AD era dates, e.g., "3rd century AD", "AD 314". For uses with just the year, "AD 2007" is the usual and correct form (with AD in front and not at the end), and is never used with the month and day. I have rarely encountered the form "March 21, 2007 AD", and using it over and over again in the same article calls negative attention to the article. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 18:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*You are correct. Maybe some are using it constantly to (re)make a point over and over. That would be disruptive. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I see the article [[Democratic Party]] has been expunged of the attention-grabbing '''AD'''s. As for the 4th C., it occurs to me this is merely a demand to follow a uniform style. Every publishing house has its own manual of style. Fine: we use BC/AD instead of the johnny-come-lately BCE/CE. I'm used to the MLA style manual; interestingly, Wikipedia and Conservapedia follows it, particularly in the presentation of the names of people, which makes for difficulties in alphabetizing biographical articles. My modest suggestion is that C. IV be rewritten to indicate everyone is expected to follow a standard style. As it stands, it seems Conservapedia has knee-jerking objections to BCE/CE a la ''letters to the editor'' in [[Biblical Archaeology Review]]. As for style, I have no objections to a breezy, mid-register style, provided the grammar, spelling and content/sourcing are sound (1st rule of writing: one always writes to the expected audience, and speaking above them, or worse, to a third party behind them, is an automatic turnoff to all readers). --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 00:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== A good wiki rule - no personal attacks ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks No personal attacks]. As this site grows and more people with different interpretations of source material join, it would be proper to put down a rule regarding personal attacks. As has recently been seen, this can can be very disruptive to the communication between editors, makes people who have positive contributions less likely to join and presents a poor image of conservapedia to the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think this is a no-brainer, as Argumentum ad Hominem provides absolutely no value to any discussion. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== rule # 6==
why is this rule not enforced? 20:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Etiquette==
Shouldn't you guys have a page detailing what etiquette is standard? I know you guys prefer rules you can get your knickers (or panties? I guess knickers is a British word) in a twist over, but it might be a good idea to talk about how exactly people are supposed to use talk pages and the like. For example, it doesn't say anywhere to sign your posts with three tildes, and it doesn't say exactly how to respond to comments on talk pages-- I'm never sure if I should respond directly after the post I'm replying to or after the replies to the post I'm replying to. This is just if you're interested in having people who didn't learn already this stuff at Wikipedia already, though. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Your RH, one might want to check here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Contents]] at the "Help" pages, clearly marked in the menu bar on the left. Thanks for your concerns, and I promise you, my knickers don't have wrinkle one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==American spelling==
We have decided to remove Conservapedia Commandment 5. (American Spellings must be used) We decided that it wasn't enirely fair to and created too much trouble for our users who are not from America. However we would like Conservapedia to be as consistant as possible so we will continue to include american spellings as a style guideline. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 21:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== This does not add up ==

''7. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not.'' http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia

Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Rules

But if I publish my Original research on my own site, I can include it... --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:It also potentially clashes with the "must be true" and "always cite" commandments (see Talk page of the Differences article). But who cares? We also forbid gossip and at the same time call it "factual information": [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 See here]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That's exactly right. Both Wikipedia and here would allow an author to present his personal opinion on his site and cite it here. This is why it would be better if we did not allow personal websites to be used for information in articles. If it is worthy information, it will appear elsewhere. It might mean a little more editor work, but it will save countless editor discussions. And it will greatly improve how the public sees us, too. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

em.. no .... wikipedia does not allow an author to do that - people try it, but it's removed where found. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 05:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

1) Wikipedia ''definitely'' does not allow an author to do that.

2) The key point here is "properly labelled." Andrew Schlafly is experimenting with this idea. I don't know how well formed it is. I haven't been following closely but he posted an example: [[Adultress Story - Original Work]]. Perhaps others will make similar contributions and a body of practice and policy will evolve. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== grammar ==

I believe this sentence is grammatically incorrect:

'''"When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of [[Jesus]], give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis."'''

:Deny the historical basis of what? It is a incomplete sentence. I don't want to fix the sentence because I don't know what the author intended. Is it "deny the historical basis" of the birth of Christ? If so, I think a citation is warranted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

*"[[CE]]" and "[[BCE]]" should not be used on Conservapedia because that is exactly what the intent is; to deny historical basis.

"CE" stands for "Common Era." It is a relatively new term that is experiencing increased usage and secular progressives think it will eventually replace AD. The latter is an abbreviation for "Anno Domini" in Latin or "the year of the Lord" in English. The latter refers to the approximate birth year of [[Jesus Christ]]. CE and AD have the same and value. 2004 CE = 2004 AD.

"BCE" stands for "Before the common era." It might eventually replace BC, which means "Before Christ," or "Before the Messiah." BC and BCE are also identical in value. Most theologians and religious historians believe that the approximate birth date of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) was in the fall, sometime between 7 and 4 BCE, although there are estimates as late as 4 CE and as early as the second century BCE.

At its year 2000 convention at Orlando FL, the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] approved their Resolution #9: ''"On retaining the traditional method of calendar dating (B.C./A.D.)." With reference to the popularity of the CE/BCE nomenclature, it stated, in part: "...This practice is the result of the secularization, antisupernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society." ''The traditional method of dating is a reminder of the preeminence of Christ and His gospel in world history.''"'' The resolution recommended that Southern Baptist "individuals, churches, entities, and institutions....retain the traditional method of dating and avoid this revisionism.

Those secularists and Liberal progressives adopting the new appellation's, often explain that the [[Ethic of Reciprocity]] ([[The Golden Rule]]) suggests that one should not intentionally cause unnecessary pain to other humans. We should treat others as we would wish to be treated. Since one out of every three humans on earth is a Christian, some very theologians and authors felt that non-religious, neutral terms like CE and BCE would be less "offensive" to the non-Christian majority on the planet. Forcing a [[Hindu]], for example, to use AD and BC are seen by the [[Liberal]] progressives as coercing them to acknowledge the supremacy of the [[Christian God]] and of [[Jesus Christ]]. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Search Engine Exemption ==

Why the note exempting search engine spiders from "Commandment" 6. The "commandment" itself even specifies "wiki-bots" and it's not like a search engine spider would even obey anything like this. I propose the note be removed from the page because it is just dumb, useless, clutter. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== sourcing ==

There is a conservapedia commandment stating: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't think this is enough. There are many articles at Conservapedia which do not have any sourcing via footnotes. I think this undercuts our credibility and helps encourage people to put mere opinion that is not sourced. I think over the long run if we are to compete with Wikipedia we must have sourcing. Sourcing should be a requirement and not merely implied.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: What counts as a reliable source? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Like I said at [[Talk:Main_Page#sourcing]]: We already have a sourcing rule. It's, like, right under the one you quote. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Credentials ==

Many times on this site, if someone does not like and edit, they question the person's credentials. This is a bit of an unfair attack, however, I have presented mine. Perhaps if someone wants to challenge someone else's credentials, they should consider revealing their own? --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

*Doctor, you know what a red herring is, certainly. Pay no mind. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I do think that if someone feels that they are more of an expert on a topic then a particular editor, they should be able to prove it. It is illigitimate to question someone's creds without showing yours.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip vrs. legitimate scandal information==
Commandment number 3 clearly rules out “gossip” the manual of style for political figures clearly says that “non-gossip scandals” are appropriate information to include in a political figure’s entry. Recently some information I (and others) had added to the entry on [[Rush Limbaugh]] was removed as gossip—I had included the part I added (and I assume this is true for the other contributors) under the belief that I was adding non-gossip scandal. I say that as background for my question: what is the dividing line between gossip and non-gossip scandal? I also asked this at [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Politicians]], but it was suggested that I ask here. I am trying to make a contribution here and am trying to edit in line with the rules, but apparently despite my best efforts I may have inadvertently crossed a line, can someone please clarify what exactly is acceptable scandal information and what is unacceptable gossip?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Looking at the edit history, I take it you're referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&diff=75691&oldid=75577 this]? The assertion that he's "repeatedly" been the subject of "scandal and controversy," and the examples being (I'm taking them at their unflattering face value) a) comparing the Clinton's daughter to a dog (but in a way allowing him to pretend he was "just kidding"); b) the revelation that he was addicted to and illegally using oxycontin; c) remarks about Michael J. Fox implying that he was exaggerating his symptoms to gain sympathy.

:Without trying to formulate policy, it seems to me that the essence of gossip is ''schadenfreude,'' delight in seeing some, particularly someone you dislike, humiliated, taken down a notch, exposed in a lie, etc.

:One possible test of whether something should be in an article is this: would it be in someone's newspaper obituary? If you believe it would be in their obituary, than it's not just gossip. If you're not sure whether it would be in someone's obituary, you need to think about it carefully (and make an explicit case as to why it's ''not'' just gossip. I'm about to do a test; I don't know yet how it will come out. I'm going to look up Warren G. Harding's obituary in The New York Times (why the Times? because it's the one I have online access to). I'm ''guessing'' that it will say something about his administration being "marred by scandal" or something of that sort. I'm ''guessing'' it will mention Teapot Dome. What I don't know is whether it will mention Nan Britton. Almost certainly not, since she didn't publish her book until 1927. Let's go see... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go, August 3, 1923, p 3. "HARDING A FARM BOY WHO ROSE BY WORK; Became a Newspaper Publisher, a Party Leader and Held Ohio Offices. PRESIDENT BY SUDDEN TURN His Wife Had a Premonition of His Death if Elevated to White House. WORK FOR ARMS REDUCTION His Efforts in Behalf of American Participation in the World Court." Nope, that article doesn't discuss his Presidency at all, to speak of... Interesting... as nearly as I can tell in a quick search, the Times mentioned Teapot Dome numerous times but did not conspicuously associate ''Harding'' with the scandal. Let's try a standard short-biography source (also courtesy of my public library); Dictionary of American Biography. Teapot Dome, check. Nan Britton, check. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::You are quite right, that is most of what I was referring to (though my addition was his illegal use of Viagra which seemed relevant in light of the painkiller charges and only in light of them)—though I’ve asked this question a few different times in some other places as well [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Rudy_Guiliani here for example].
::The standard you propose is an interesting one, but I see a few problems with it—
::First, that is clearly not the standard that is followed on many pages: see [[Rudy Giuliani]] (His affairs will not be part of his obituary nor will the fact that his first marriage was to a cousin.), [[John McCain]] (I doubt that the S&L scandal will make his obituary—but I think it is a very relevant and non-gossip scandal), and [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] (Whitewater—another non-gossip scandal—will not make her obituary). Second, the rule you propose is speculative—I don’t think those things will make the obituary, but you might—it provides very little in the way of actual guidance. Third, I think that several important scandals would be left out based on this rule (as I note above) and I find that troublesome. Finally, the rule provides different answers at different times—had McCain died during the S&L scandal it would be part of his obituary and if he dies during another S&L type scandal it might make it, but if he dies today, or during the campaign, it will not.
::Mostly though, I am asking for a clear and official statement on what exactly gossip is so that when I am asking myself “is this gossip?” I can look to something other than my own gut felling (which apparently conflicts with the gut feeling of others) about the nature of gossip.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== New Rule ==

I suggest a new rule:
:Don't let [[fact]]s get in the way of a good article.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Rule against templates ==

Since there have been 2.5 bans ([[User:BDobbs]], [[User:AmesG]], and my own temporary ban and the ensuing discussion) about templates (all three given out by TK), I suggest a new rule so that people don't just get banned for breaking a non-existent rule TK simply invented and enforces on the fly:
{{QuoteBox|All article templates have to be authorized by a [[Special:Listusers/bureaucrat|bureaucrat]] or by a consensus of a group of [[Special:Listusers/sysop|sysops]]. Users who create and/or use such templates without authorization will be banned.}}
Either implement the rule or stop TK from making up rules. There was no word in an official place that making and using templates is now subject to bureaucrat-approval (it's NOT enough that even two sysops make a template together), and people get banned for it. Hardly sounds fair to me. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 05:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sid, your post is inappropriate because you haven't been appointed their advocate. It would be appropriate for them to post here, when back, protesting. You deciding, on your own, to say the act isn't vandalism, won't change the fact that it was. '''Vandalism is against our rules.''' Quit taking up causes to merely stir the pot. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::You forget that you also banned me for allegedly placing an unauthorized template. Besides, I don't ''have'' to be "appointed" to be the "advocate" of anybody. This isn't a court or a republic, it's a freaking WIKI. You just assert that people break rules, you assert that I am not authorized to speak for anybody else, you assert that this is a republic. I honestly don't want this to turn into another lengthy discussion. My request was sincere. The end. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*I understand what you have said, and your sticking up for them. The parties knew full well what they were doing when the made and/or stuck it on articles, I think we can agree on that. Being the thinking people they are, I know they at least considered the ramifications of their actions...at least I would like to hope they would. I am not even saying if I agree or not that some articles actually need a sign that says: "This is pure idiocy, and reading it might actually destroy your Brain!". What I am saying, however, is that without consultation, allowing anyone to slap a text box on article pages labeling it, essentially as "BS", can be very disruptive, tantamount to spray painting a wall, the equivalent of typed graffiti, ergo, Vandalism. There isn't any intellectual squabble between me and the parties, no vendetta. Those with power, in the exercising of it, always risk being mistaken. I honestly don't think I am, and if the powers that be disagree, they can and will reverse my actions. Won't be the first time that has happened here, nor I suspect the last. Just understand there wasn't anything personal in my actions, nor on the part of the other Sysop who agreed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::(Since you copied the thing from your Talk page, here is a copy of the reply)
::TK, the powers that be (=Andy) won't do anything, no matter what you do (with the exception of going against Andy's view of conservatism). You know this, I know this. Just look at the various complaints about Conservative or you on Andy's pages. The only times when Andy actually bothered to reply was in order to say "I don't see anything wrong." or even "Great job, [accused sysop]! You have my full support!"
::Heck, look at the Morality copright thing that got partially revived after the archive-creation. "Hey, what about the morality copyright gig?" - "I thought that was resolved because TK got permission." - "No, it wasn't since that wasn't the only source he copied from." - *no reply*
::Or even more extreme, look at the CWilson/Karajou issue that resulted with the ''complaining'' user being banned.
::So don't worry. Any complaint about you or any other sysop won't put you in any danger of any sort. You won't even have to worry about a slap on the wrist or a scolding "Nuh-uh! Bad sysop!". You are under Andy's shield. If anything, Andy will tell ''me'' to stop bothering him. *shrugs* You don't even have to answer in my complaint threads - just ignore me, the result will be the same.
::If you want to reply, do so, but don't expect me to answer. I have better things to do than discussing about why you think your actions are justified or not. I only try to bring the written rules more in line with what's actually being enforced.
::Just think about this: What is the difference between the template and the various edits that were reverted by Conservative in Theory of Evolution? Arguably, the attempts to remove the extreme anti-evolution bias could be seen as vandalism in your broad sense. We have rules, but they're ''extremely'' fuzzy. I'm only trying to trace the borders of these fuzzy areas. The Bible gave people ten laws, and nowadays, there are a few hundred/thousand or so of them. Me trying to refine the existing rules is the same mechanism - the realization that just six rules are not enough to properly cover such a complex place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I like your suggested rule, but I think that it should specify how many sysops you need to agree on your template (e.g. 5). --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:40, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Somewhere between 5 or 8, I would think more than fair, Benjamin. Now, Sid, part of the problem in discussing anything with you is your hyperbole. Could you at least make an attempt to tone down the flamboyant language? It brings a real anger and false urgency to anything you post about. Blocking for a short duration is more in tune with suspension than "banning" which traditionally means never to return. Arguing nit-picks about if this or that is "vandalism" isn't going to garner you support or replies from Andy and the others. Spend less of your posting on complaining and elevating all issues to VERY IMPORTANT status, and more can get done. I notice lots of people with good ideas for this place, and looking at their talk or user pages, also notice really nasty and vile remarks about Andy, and even his family. Surely you realize crap like that isn't going to get them to be willing to take people who do that seriously..... --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*The stub template seems entirely unnecessary to me. Why do we need a notice telling us an article is short? Anyone can see when an article needs expansion. A category for short articles is beneficial, because it will allow people to find short articles easily, but the stub template is superfluous and distracting. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's a boot in the tail. If random visitor X see short articles over and over they'll wander off of the site...If they see stub after stub they MAY think "Hey, I could do something on this article!" And register (if it's open) and expand the article. That's my take on that template anyways. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I agree, Sharon. Rob and Sharon, the template in question, the newest one, in essence it said "This Article Is Moronic", in the original version, it threatened "banning" for the contributor. They revised it to read other, later, but kept the snide tone. Then, as MoutainDew posted on my talk page, it was slapped on several articles by a couple of people. Something about doing that, and something about others here thinking that kind of behavior is acceptable, is whacked. Here are the three templates, the original and the "revised" editions:
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9999; background-color: #FFCCCC;"
|-
|align="center"|[[Image:Stop_hand.svg|50px|Warning]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' Be advised that editing with a factual bias grounded in reality is counter to the principles of Conservapedia, and if you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing for a period of time, or banned.
|}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' You are editing against the consensus of other users, and to promote your own bias in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. You are requested to cease and desist.
|}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' This article has been identified as containing biased, unsourced statements.
|}

and its location is here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit]] That earned the guys slapping it up a day or two off, just FYI. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Three things. Sharon, you can also search for stubs as a category (articles needing improvement) and see all the articles that need improvement. Convenient. Sid, would this rule apply to templates created by sysops? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it also applies to templates created by sysops. Case in point: The "Protected" template had been created and used by sysops, and due to a <s>hilarious</s> sad mix-up, I ended up in a fairly heated debate about it (after being temp-banned and unbanned). The template had even been temporarily blanked and had then been reworded by Ed and TK to form a sort of "consensus" version. In fact, it had been that template that triggered the whole "Don't insert templates without consulting the other sysops and/or Andy!!!" issue. So just being a sysop does not place you above this rule (hence the careful wording about one bureaucrat or a consensus of a few sysops). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*There wasn't any "consensus" version of the "Protected" template. Ed and I both agreed, from the outset of the convo, what it should contain. Quit trying to drive wedges, or make it a matter of two "sides". That's careful wording to subtly change history, to make it seem there was an issue, when there was not. Sysops should have to obtain the okay from a minimum of five of their peers before making/including system-wide templates. It is silly thinking that as part of the sites administration, that rules regarding housekeeping would apply to them the same as any casual user, someone who signed up 24 hours earlier. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Easy there. The key phrase right now is "Assume Good Faith". When I wrote "consensus" in quotation marks, I was referring to "consensus formed by two sysops, as opposed to the consensus described in my initial suggestion since the latter has more than just two sysops in mind".
::I'm not trying to "change history". That is kinda hard in a place where "history" is an easily accessible tab on virtually all pages. Additionally, I believe that I don't ''have'' to change history. It pretty much speaks for itself. If anybody wants to, I can construct a rough timeline of the events, complete with links to the pages in question. All the information is out there, it's just a question of knowing where to look. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:06, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I am glad you clarified what you meant. As to the number of Sysops, am I reading you correctly, you would prefer agreement of two as opposed to 5 or more? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I chose the "group of sysops" wording because I didn't really have a value in mind. But the "Protected" thing sorta showed that "two" is not enough (Ed and David are both sysops and formed the "consensus" to use it). Besides, I don't think that two sysops alone have the same "decision-making power level" as one sysop in critical cases.
::I still have no fixed value in mind, and ''I don't think there should be one''. Some cases will obviously require more input than others (the higher the impact on pages, the more sysops should be consulted - I'd rank the Protected template relatively low, but a radical template like "This article misrepresents facts and should be rewritten immediately by a more competent editor" should have some serious discussion before usage), so it should be evaluated on the fly by the editor who gets the idea and by the sysops who engage in the discussion.
::(And no, I do not suggest that anybody actually creates such a template - it was an extreme example.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:23, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Follow-up note: The "Protected" template in the end only required 3-4 sysops (if I remember correctly), and only 2-3 at a time. Things worked out. That's what I mean with "ranking relatively low" - it was apparent that there was no need for a full poll of 5+ sysops, just a few sysops communicating with each other about goals and implementation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Fair enough. BTW, the problem with the protected template, and consensus is, while Ed agreed to it, he expressly said it shouldn't be added to users own pages. So even with "consensus" unless communication is clear, and people actually abide by the intentions of the makers, it all falls apart. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why don't we have Ten Commandments? ==

Seems like it would be meaningful to have a full set of 10 commandments, showing that our inspiration comes from the Bible. Surely we can come up with 4 more.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 19:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==But some are more equal than others==

<s>1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Morality]

<s>2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. Please see Conservapedia's Manual of Style which assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article.</s>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Aesthetics] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Morality]

<s>3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.</s>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality]

4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.

<s>5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account. Advertisements are prohibited.</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Breast_cancer]

6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.

So we are left with BC and AD and no wiki-bots. But there is no problem adding a ton of capricious rules to randomly block contributors. So THIS is what America would be like if it was run completely by the right wing Christian fundamentalist. Theocratic dictatorship at its best. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-04-11T20:11:31Z

Etaroced:

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The bible is not valid research in any matter scientific, and should be removed from ALL articles pertaining to actual science. However the bible is relevent to many other subjects and in my opinion should be cited, however should not be taken as absolute fact. -SJ

::::The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The Bible scientific? Where was I when this was decided? Also you can't use it as a historical information source as well as it has many conflictions within itself. For instance the see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#Variations_between_the_genealogies Genealogy of Jesus]. Definately not historically accurate. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm not going to use as a source of Biblical information anything from Wikipedia. As for the Bible being a reliable source of info both historical and scientific, that was decided long before you were born. And we are going to use it here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:26, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biased, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You know, basically doing what all of you could be doing at Wikipedia if you didn't prefer secession over improvement. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. furthermore 1,2 and 6 seem to say similar things. Number one says things must be verifiable. Number two says that you must cite sources - which sounds similar to saying they must be verifiable. Number six says that you mustn't post personal opinion - but if what you are posting is verifiable and sourced then it shouldn't be personal opinion anyway.
-
- An example of a page which contains unverified, un-sourced personal opinions in the page on "liberal" which has no less than 19 such statements. I'm not saying they're not true - simply that they don't obey commandments 1,2 and 6. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: ''Cite a source'', ''Must be verifiable'' and ''No personal opinion'' can be argued to be separate subjects. However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject. Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements. A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle. A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain '''what appears to be''' a document's replication. But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website. People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia. The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind. So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, OK. They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them? There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically '''not''' acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a source which must not be copied from, Wikipedia. But that probably wasn't your question. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
NOTE: Aschlafly comments on his Talk page:
:Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
So that would seem to settle it for the time being. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

* I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here! Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You might want to '''bold''' text the line:
====Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.====
[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or you might go a step less and state it as:
*Do not copy from '''''Wikipedia''''' or other non-public domain sources. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to propose a condition to this to develop the growth of the project- That articles, especially those from wikipedia can be copied, but once applied to articles here, should be '''Heavily edited''' by us to remove any liberalisim apparent in the article. This would develop the quality of pages already created, and doesn't violate Wikipedias GDFL. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Wikipedia's Policy on Verbatim Copying]. In browsing the site I have seen that a lot of articles are one-liners. Implicating something like this could greatly the quality of the pages already running.[[User:Xsophos|Xsophos]] 05:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong, wrong, wrong.
:Unfortunately, what you're proposing '''most definitely does''' violate Wikipedia's GFDL, in '''two ways.'''
:First, the GFDL does not allow re-use of GFDL-licensed content ''unless the copy is also licensed under GFDL.'' Since Conservapedia does '''not''' license its material under the GFDL, Conservapedia '''cannot''' use GFDL material whether verbatim or modified. Ditto Creative Commons or other "free" licenses.
:Second, the link you cite says clearly that simple verbatim copying of an article article is allowed ''only with restrictions.'' You seem to be focussing on the "allowed" part and conveniently ignoring the restrictions. Three of them are:
::*"You may not add, remove, or change any content or links within the Main Text..."
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation '''worse,''' because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
:All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object.
:However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the sanction of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL really might object in some serious way.
:P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to ''allow'' people to provide information that is "free" but to ''preventing'' exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. I just thought putting it here would be a good interim measure if it's ''not'' going to be on the Registration page soon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Against Proposal:
How would this be of any use? If anyone wants to vandalize this wiki then they easily can. And if you start banning people with user names like mine (trekie9001) than people will just sign up as RichCheese or some other such "real" sounding names and it won't make a bit of difference. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm with Mtur on this one. Accessing a protected computer means in or using someone elses logon info (same sorta thing). And the important part of the statute is obtaining anything of value, simply by editting information, which this website was created for, does not cause anyone to lose money. As I mentioned in my post on the talk p [[ USC § 1470]] I'd consult a criminal lawyer before making sweeping threats of legal action. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This is laughable - you guys actually think anyone will take you seriously about those vandalism charges...but I guess you take yourself so seriously you started another version of wikipedia that is doomed to fail / be run by right wing loonies anyway.

While you are right in saying that some will vandalize pages regardless of any threats of prosecutions, you are wrong in saying ''no one'' will take these threats seriously. If we follow through with our new rule, I am positive that vandalism and obscenity will decrease significantly. Obviously, you underestimate this site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 12:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you overestimate this site. Not only is it incredibly easy to hide your IP address or even use a public computer, but I think that you would actually get laughed out of court if you attempted to take someone on for posting anything on this website. The internet has been around for a decent ammount of time now and I'm pretty sure that very few people have gotten busted for "vandalizing" websites. You probably wouldn't even have standing in court. ('''Since you probably don't know what standing is you should go look it up on Wikipedia...since you guys seem to be missing the page)'''. If you did they could defeat you on whether or not what they did was vandalism under any of those legal definitions.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm kinda with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia has been around for how many years? And how many court cases have we seen on this basis so far? There must be at least several thousand cases so far, assuming that things work exactly like Andy says. My assumption is that, if Wikipedia hasn't managed to eliminate the vandal problem, Conservapedia won't magically eliminate it, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia forged new ground, that does not mean that Wikipedia DID IT RIGHT. A Wiki's quality could be said to be no better than the quality of its least editor. For wikipedia this means any person on the planet. A required registration is a step up, and though it might not be sufficient, it is a step toward quality improvement. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It "could be said," but that wouldn't make it true. I don't know how to measure exactly how well Wikipedia "works" or how "good" it is, but I would say it works very well and is very good. I would also say it works ''surprisingly'' well and is ''surprisingly'' good, because it is much better than most people (including me) would have guessed, based on a description of how it operates. There are some pretty interesting social dynamics in play there. I don't know how well ''anybody'' understands them. Wikipedia articles are ''much'' better than the quality of its poorest editor. In contrast to, say [[Homosexuality]] here which is exactly as good as the quality of its sole editor. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Then there is the issue of foreign vandals; I noticed they could report vandals to their employer. As far as Canada goes, sharing such information with anyone other than the police would be a violation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA for short). You see in the free world, we have the right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty. You would have to provide information to the police and allow them to conduct the investigation. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::While I agree that cites need to be done in a coherent manner, I'm not such a big fan of the MLA system. What's wrong with traditional foot- and end-notes? The Wiki software supports that kind of referencing already. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 18:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That is also a correct way to cite a source; foot and endnotes have been in use for years with no problem. What I said above is not written in stone, but there must be some sort of standard guide. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Trollish Language ==

"in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia" is an unverified statement and one in a highly combative tone. If you wish to create a resource rather than simply attack other people, perhaps something constructive would be a good idea. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Prosecutor ==
Frankly, I'm very curious about the site and very much appreciate TRUE conservatism. However the sheer ridiculousness of this site is overwhelming. TO think that you could provide my IP address to my local prosecutor (snicker) AND expect them to do something about hurting your feelings or violating some internal code is actually very amusing. You are far more likely to have my prosecutor (here called a Crown Prosecutor, but try the RCMP first because they refer eveidence) call you and ask you to stop harrassing them. Just silly.
:this is not harassment, it is law enforcement. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::It still begs the question of how such enforcement would be enacted. The original commenter has mentioned a Crown Prosecutor and the RCMP, so presumably is Canadian. Therefore, the cited title of the US Code cannot be applied if this person's log-in and edits are indeed coming from outside the U.S. I imagine that strictly speaking, the FBI would be involved since this would cross national borders, but I have to say the chances they and/or the RCMP would actually do anything about it are probably vanishingly small. Given the difficulty that usually obtains in extraditing murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or any other undesirables who flee US jurisdiction, I suspect electronic vandalism would be so far down in the ground clutter as to not even register. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article. ==

Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] article.

Here is commandment #1:

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I think we need to specify that verifiable means you provide a footnote. For example, I believe the a [[Scopes trial]] article is poor because it has few footnotes. I think it would force Conservapedians to do better work if "verifiable" was clarified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Providing a footnote isn't enough ... you can find articles that will support any topic if you search hard enough. All references should be verified and ideally backed up with other sources. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.

On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Furthermore - you would have to show it is vandalism. Imagine trying to prove that a non-creationist but factually correct post was 'vandalism' in a court of law. I think it may well cause a laugh or too but certainly no penalty.

== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==

As written on [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]].
===For===
#[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

===Against===

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT) see my note on the comments page. http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2

== Enforcement of the commandments and abuse of power ==

[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] was given a 2 hour ban after making exactly [[Special:Contributions/Alloco1|two edits]]. The first was describing himself on his user page, the second was asking if an unattractive picture was chosen of [[Hillary Clinton]] on the article talk page and implying bias. What commandments did he or she violate?

[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] was given a 1 week ban after engaging in a debate with the sysop [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], by that same Sysop. No neutral party was consulted and attempt to engage Conservative in discussion was stifled.

"These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia"

There appears to be a disconnect between the commandments and the enforcement of the commandments and it should be addressed if the site is to be respected. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Get used to it. Hypocrisy is the the lifeblood of ALL politics, and this is a political site. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment Proposal ==

Checking over Aschlafly's [[User_talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] it seems like that has become the dumping ground for... well for everything. This is counterproductive both for Mr. Schlafly and for users that are accustomed to finding comments in the appropriate article or user talk page. And it certainly seems to be annoying. So perhaps there should be some manner of commandment regarding the use of user:talk pages as it appears to be a blockable offense. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think it should be left as a disclaimer on individual User Talk pages. I got a ban warning for posting sarcasm on Aschlafly's Talk page, but I wouldn't have anything against that on my own talk page. Restricting activity on such a wide level because one or two people feel that they are being flooded strikes me as counter-productive.
:I'd rather suggest that the admin team organizes its processes so Aschlafly doesn't get flooded with EVERYTHING. The creation of the Abuse page is a good start, but there should be a few (non-commandment) policies about where to report what. Right now, the only widely known policy is "If in doubt, ask Aschlafly". That's the real problem.
:Aschlafly could (for example) put this at the top of his Talk page:
{{QuoteBox|This page is not the universal Help Desk. If you wish to complain about an article, do so on its Talk page. If you wish to report abuse, do so at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. If you want to call for Admin Review, do so (Conservapedia: Admin Review). More generic problems can also be handled by other Admins, please try to distribute the load evenly.}}
:Just a quickly created example. It would be the first step to educate the casual editors about what goes where. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think if bans are going to be threatened, then the policy has to include banning as a consequence. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, yes. However, I think/hope that people don't REALLY get banned just for poking an Admin. That would have a very chilling effect on the overall mood (more than it has already). So I assumed that the real reason for Aschlafly's ban warnings is just a sign of stress in the face of a flooded Talk page. So if we fix that, we don't have to set up strict rules about what you aren't allowed to say on (User) Talk pages. Conservapedia already bans users over little things like content disputes, no need to make things even stricter.
:::But if the ban warning policy really stays like this, it should of course be reflected here. In particular, Rule 6 would have to be altered quite a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Un-American Spelling ==
I am wondering why conservapedia feels threatened by, say, british spelling of words vs american spellings. I like to use the british spellings because my computer says it is spelled incorrectly, yet i still love America. A paradox, isn't it? Still, perhaps we should choose the correct dialect in America to use on this cite. Otherwise, someone could point out the british spelling is used in some parts of America, and thus be considered "American," and therefore be able to use it. I personally am partial to the Mid-west.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 10:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia is rather unusual in allowing and supporting a mix of usage styles. Most U. S. print publishers would specify a style manual calling out U. S. spelling. Most U. K. publishers would specify a style manual calling out British spelling. When a U. S. work is republished in the U. K. or vice versa, one of the publication steps would be copyediting the work to conform to local usage. A good example of this would be the first Harry Potter book, in which even the ''title'' was changed for the U. S. market. Conversely, I don't know if they would do this any more but I remembering reading a British edition of ''The Grapes of Wrath'' in which the Okies were talking about the difficulty of buying "a gallon a petrol" for their car.

:99.9% of all print publications mandate that spelling conform to whichever side of the pond they're on, and nobody thinks twice about it. If Conservapedia wants to say "We're an American encyclopedia," this shouldn't in itself raise any eyebrows.

:Wikipedia's policy is, of course, a very pragmatic response to the problem of producing an ''international'' English-language encyclopedia that is edited completely by unpaid volunteers who can't be ordered to use a uniform style and can't be assigned the job of copy-editing everything to a uniform style.

:My guess, and ''it's just a guess,'' is that something like this could have happened. Suppose one day a student typed in something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_record Phonograph record], misinterpreted what happened, thought that Wikipedia had '''corrected''' what he had typed in, and told a teacher "No, the right name is 'Gramophone record,' Wikipedia says so," and the teacher overreacted.

:Is there a legitimate concern about (say) U. S. high school students using Wikipedia as a learning resource and thereby acquiring incorrect spelling habits? Let me put it this way: Conservapedia's emphasis on this point seems grotesquely exaggerated, but I, at least, see the point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hate speech ==

Awhile back in [[Talk:Fred_Phelps]] the suggestion was made that hate speech should be prohibited on Conservapedia. I believe that it is time to present this as a suggestion for a commandment, especially when taken into context of [[Talk:Homosexuality]]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please Define Hate Speech. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:huey gunna getcha]] was blocked for implying the mass killing of homosexuals at [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]] --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Preaching God's word is not hate speech. Only homosexuals believe so. It's part of their agenda. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::RightWolf, you make the baby Jesus cry.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I believe the best definition would revolve around [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot bigotry]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No it is not. People committing sodomy are not in a protected class. Please don't try to hijack the righteous freedom train on a deadly detour from Selma to Sodom. being born Black is not a sin. Engaging in sexual perversion is. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, right. Because we all know that homosexuality is a choice<nowiki></sarcasm></nowiki>. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::In that case, many people on this site would be blocked. Most Christians regard homosexuality with extreme prejudice. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He went on a long rant about how creating a "cure" for homosexuality is an awesome idea. He then said "If genetic tinkering doesn't work, rifles rarely fail." Tell me how that is not hate speech. It's [[Nazi|Nazism]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am merely quoting from the bible. I realize that it's "vouge" and "sylish" to accept homosexuals. You can tell it to my baby brother, who was kidnapped and raped by a homosexual when he was 11. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Because if one individual in a group of tens of millions does something, then all of them must be bad. Hmmmm... brings to mind Eric Robert Rudolph, doesn't it? Does this mean that because one Christian did it, they all must be bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Also, in regards to RightWolf, aside from the fact that he makes the baby Jesus cry with his bigoted, homophobic, hatemongering remarks, homosexuals are in a protected class, as a "discrete and insular minority" according to the term defined in ''Korematsu'' carried forward in ''Lawrence'' and ''Loving''. The law is not on your side, and thankfully, neither is most of America. I'm with Hojimachong. Hate speech will further drag this site through the mud.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not entirely true. In the state I am in, sodomy is a Class A misdemeanor and inducing acceptance of sodomy to a minor is a class 3 felony. Lawrence vs. Kansas has not been accepted here where minors are concerned. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::You also should remove the references in the homosexual agenda about "supressing biblical teachings which condemn homosexuality" if this is the view of the majority. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does a law regarding minors have to do at all? Regardless, I'd like to see you cite this alleged "law" that classifies sodomy as illegal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, he's probably right about his "state" having a law on the books banning sodomy. Georgia didn't repeal its immediately after ''Lawrence v TEXAS'' either. However, the sodomy law in his "state" will never be prosecuted again because any conviction is now ''per se'' unconstitutional. I don't know where you come from, RightWolf, but Supreme Court precedent is binding on all lower courts and states. It's not optional.
: That said, I am deeply sorry for your brother, who was raped by a homosexual. No doubt there are gay men who are bad men. However, there are straight men who are bad men too. Being gay doesn't make you a rapist anymore than being straight makes you a rapist.
: And finally, sodomy laws protecting minors are still in place, just like statutory rape laws still exist...-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe in the First Ammendment, so any rule should be calefully thought out and clearly defined. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Does the first amendment apply to the administration of a website? I'm no lawyer, But I don't think it would. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech. It is perfectly acceptable to censor anything on private property. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== 4th C, (use of AD). ==

I've noticed an excessive use of 'AD' in contexts where it is rarely used, and in most instances, it's also being used wrongly. See my comments in [[Talk:Democratic Party]]. BC is used consistently to indicate pre-AD 1 dates, and not quite so often for early AD era dates, e.g., "3rd century AD", "AD 314". For uses with just the year, "AD 2007" is the usual and correct form (with AD in front and not at the end), and is never used with the month and day. I have rarely encountered the form "March 21, 2007 AD", and using it over and over again in the same article calls negative attention to the article. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 18:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*You are correct. Maybe some are using it constantly to (re)make a point over and over. That would be disruptive. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I see the article [[Democratic Party]] has been expunged of the attention-grabbing '''AD'''s. As for the 4th C., it occurs to me this is merely a demand to follow a uniform style. Every publishing house has its own manual of style. Fine: we use BC/AD instead of the johnny-come-lately BCE/CE. I'm used to the MLA style manual; interestingly, Wikipedia and Conservapedia follows it, particularly in the presentation of the names of people, which makes for difficulties in alphabetizing biographical articles. My modest suggestion is that C. IV be rewritten to indicate everyone is expected to follow a standard style. As it stands, it seems Conservapedia has knee-jerking objections to BCE/CE a la ''letters to the editor'' in [[Biblical Archaeology Review]]. As for style, I have no objections to a breezy, mid-register style, provided the grammar, spelling and content/sourcing are sound (1st rule of writing: one always writes to the expected audience, and speaking above them, or worse, to a third party behind them, is an automatic turnoff to all readers). --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 00:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== A good wiki rule - no personal attacks ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks No personal attacks]. As this site grows and more people with different interpretations of source material join, it would be proper to put down a rule regarding personal attacks. As has recently been seen, this can can be very disruptive to the communication between editors, makes people who have positive contributions less likely to join and presents a poor image of conservapedia to the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think this is a no-brainer, as Argumentum ad Hominem provides absolutely no value to any discussion. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== rule # 6==
why is this rule not enforced? 20:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Etiquette==
Shouldn't you guys have a page detailing what etiquette is standard? I know you guys prefer rules you can get your knickers (or panties? I guess knickers is a British word) in a twist over, but it might be a good idea to talk about how exactly people are supposed to use talk pages and the like. For example, it doesn't say anywhere to sign your posts with three tildes, and it doesn't say exactly how to respond to comments on talk pages-- I'm never sure if I should respond directly after the post I'm replying to or after the replies to the post I'm replying to. This is just if you're interested in having people who didn't learn already this stuff at Wikipedia already, though. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Your RH, one might want to check here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Contents]] at the "Help" pages, clearly marked in the menu bar on the left. Thanks for your concerns, and I promise you, my knickers don't have wrinkle one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==American spelling==
We have decided to remove Conservapedia Commandment 5. (American Spellings must be used) We decided that it wasn't enirely fair to and created too much trouble for our users who are not from America. However we would like Conservapedia to be as consistant as possible so we will continue to include american spellings as a style guideline. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 21:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== This does not add up ==

''7. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not.'' http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia

Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Rules

But if I publish my Original research on my own site, I can include it... --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:It also potentially clashes with the "must be true" and "always cite" commandments (see Talk page of the Differences article). But who cares? We also forbid gossip and at the same time call it "factual information": [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 See here]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That's exactly right. Both Wikipedia and here would allow an author to present his personal opinion on his site and cite it here. This is why it would be better if we did not allow personal websites to be used for information in articles. If it is worthy information, it will appear elsewhere. It might mean a little more editor work, but it will save countless editor discussions. And it will greatly improve how the public sees us, too. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

em.. no .... wikipedia does not allow an author to do that - people try it, but it's removed where found. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 05:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

1) Wikipedia ''definitely'' does not allow an author to do that.

2) The key point here is "properly labelled." Andrew Schlafly is experimenting with this idea. I don't know how well formed it is. I haven't been following closely but he posted an example: [[Adultress Story - Original Work]]. Perhaps others will make similar contributions and a body of practice and policy will evolve. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== grammar ==

I believe this sentence is grammatically incorrect:

'''"When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of [[Jesus]], give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis."'''

:Deny the historical basis of what? It is a incomplete sentence. I don't want to fix the sentence because I don't know what the author intended. Is it "deny the historical basis" of the birth of Christ? If so, I think a citation is warranted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

*"[[CE]]" and "[[BCE]]" should not be used on Conservapedia because that is exactly what the intent is; to deny historical basis.

"CE" stands for "Common Era." It is a relatively new term that is experiencing increased usage and secular progressives think it will eventually replace AD. The latter is an abbreviation for "Anno Domini" in Latin or "the year of the Lord" in English. The latter refers to the approximate birth year of [[Jesus Christ]]. CE and AD have the same and value. 2004 CE = 2004 AD.

"BCE" stands for "Before the common era." It might eventually replace BC, which means "Before Christ," or "Before the Messiah." BC and BCE are also identical in value. Most theologians and religious historians believe that the approximate birth date of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) was in the fall, sometime between 7 and 4 BCE, although there are estimates as late as 4 CE and as early as the second century BCE.

At its year 2000 convention at Orlando FL, the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] approved their Resolution #9: ''"On retaining the traditional method of calendar dating (B.C./A.D.)." With reference to the popularity of the CE/BCE nomenclature, it stated, in part: "...This practice is the result of the secularization, antisupernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society." ''The traditional method of dating is a reminder of the preeminence of Christ and His gospel in world history.''"'' The resolution recommended that Southern Baptist "individuals, churches, entities, and institutions....retain the traditional method of dating and avoid this revisionism.

Those secularists and Liberal progressives adopting the new appellation's, often explain that the [[Ethic of Reciprocity]] ([[The Golden Rule]]) suggests that one should not intentionally cause unnecessary pain to other humans. We should treat others as we would wish to be treated. Since one out of every three humans on earth is a Christian, some very theologians and authors felt that non-religious, neutral terms like CE and BCE would be less "offensive" to the non-Christian majority on the planet. Forcing a [[Hindu]], for example, to use AD and BC are seen by the [[Liberal]] progressives as coercing them to acknowledge the supremacy of the [[Christian God]] and of [[Jesus Christ]]. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Search Engine Exemption ==

Why the note exempting search engine spiders from "Commandment" 6. The "commandment" itself even specifies "wiki-bots" and it's not like a search engine spider would even obey anything like this. I propose the note be removed from the page because it is just dumb, useless, clutter. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== sourcing ==

There is a conservapedia commandment stating: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't think this is enough. There are many articles at Conservapedia which do not have any sourcing via footnotes. I think this undercuts our credibility and helps encourage people to put mere opinion that is not sourced. I think over the long run if we are to compete with Wikipedia we must have sourcing. Sourcing should be a requirement and not merely implied.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: What counts as a reliable source? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Like I said at [[Talk:Main_Page#sourcing]]: We already have a sourcing rule. It's, like, right under the one you quote. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Credentials ==

Many times on this site, if someone does not like and edit, they question the person's credentials. This is a bit of an unfair attack, however, I have presented mine. Perhaps if someone wants to challenge someone else's credentials, they should consider revealing their own? --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

*Doctor, you know what a red herring is, certainly. Pay no mind. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I do think that if someone feels that they are more of an expert on a topic then a particular editor, they should be able to prove it. It is illigitimate to question someone's creds without showing yours.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip vrs. legitimate scandal information==
Commandment number 3 clearly rules out “gossip” the manual of style for political figures clearly says that “non-gossip scandals” are appropriate information to include in a political figure’s entry. Recently some information I (and others) had added to the entry on [[Rush Limbaugh]] was removed as gossip—I had included the part I added (and I assume this is true for the other contributors) under the belief that I was adding non-gossip scandal. I say that as background for my question: what is the dividing line between gossip and non-gossip scandal? I also asked this at [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Politicians]], but it was suggested that I ask here. I am trying to make a contribution here and am trying to edit in line with the rules, but apparently despite my best efforts I may have inadvertently crossed a line, can someone please clarify what exactly is acceptable scandal information and what is unacceptable gossip?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Looking at the edit history, I take it you're referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&diff=75691&oldid=75577 this]? The assertion that he's "repeatedly" been the subject of "scandal and controversy," and the examples being (I'm taking them at their unflattering face value) a) comparing the Clinton's daughter to a dog (but in a way allowing him to pretend he was "just kidding"); b) the revelation that he was addicted to and illegally using oxycontin; c) remarks about Michael J. Fox implying that he was exaggerating his symptoms to gain sympathy.

:Without trying to formulate policy, it seems to me that the essence of gossip is ''schadenfreude,'' delight in seeing some, particularly someone you dislike, humiliated, taken down a notch, exposed in a lie, etc.

:One possible test of whether something should be in an article is this: would it be in someone's newspaper obituary? If you believe it would be in their obituary, than it's not just gossip. If you're not sure whether it would be in someone's obituary, you need to think about it carefully (and make an explicit case as to why it's ''not'' just gossip. I'm about to do a test; I don't know yet how it will come out. I'm going to look up Warren G. Harding's obituary in The New York Times (why the Times? because it's the one I have online access to). I'm ''guessing'' that it will say something about his administration being "marred by scandal" or something of that sort. I'm ''guessing'' it will mention Teapot Dome. What I don't know is whether it will mention Nan Britton. Almost certainly not, since she didn't publish her book until 1927. Let's go see... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go, August 3, 1923, p 3. "HARDING A FARM BOY WHO ROSE BY WORK; Became a Newspaper Publisher, a Party Leader and Held Ohio Offices. PRESIDENT BY SUDDEN TURN His Wife Had a Premonition of His Death if Elevated to White House. WORK FOR ARMS REDUCTION His Efforts in Behalf of American Participation in the World Court." Nope, that article doesn't discuss his Presidency at all, to speak of... Interesting... as nearly as I can tell in a quick search, the Times mentioned Teapot Dome numerous times but did not conspicuously associate ''Harding'' with the scandal. Let's try a standard short-biography source (also courtesy of my public library); Dictionary of American Biography. Teapot Dome, check. Nan Britton, check. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::You are quite right, that is most of what I was referring to (though my addition was his illegal use of Viagra which seemed relevant in light of the painkiller charges and only in light of them)—though I’ve asked this question a few different times in some other places as well [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Rudy_Guiliani here for example].
::The standard you propose is an interesting one, but I see a few problems with it—
::First, that is clearly not the standard that is followed on many pages: see [[Rudy Giuliani]] (His affairs will not be part of his obituary nor will the fact that his first marriage was to a cousin.), [[John McCain]] (I doubt that the S&L scandal will make his obituary—but I think it is a very relevant and non-gossip scandal), and [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] (Whitewater—another non-gossip scandal—will not make her obituary). Second, the rule you propose is speculative—I don’t think those things will make the obituary, but you might—it provides very little in the way of actual guidance. Third, I think that several important scandals would be left out based on this rule (as I note above) and I find that troublesome. Finally, the rule provides different answers at different times—had McCain died during the S&L scandal it would be part of his obituary and if he dies during another S&L type scandal it might make it, but if he dies today, or during the campaign, it will not.
::Mostly though, I am asking for a clear and official statement on what exactly gossip is so that when I am asking myself “is this gossip?” I can look to something other than my own gut felling (which apparently conflicts with the gut feeling of others) about the nature of gossip.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== New Rule ==

I suggest a new rule:
:Don't let [[fact]]s get in the way of a good article.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Rule against templates ==

Since there have been 2.5 bans ([[User:BDobbs]], [[User:AmesG]], and my own temporary ban and the ensuing discussion) about templates (all three given out by TK), I suggest a new rule so that people don't just get banned for breaking a non-existent rule TK simply invented and enforces on the fly:
{{QuoteBox|All article templates have to be authorized by a [[Special:Listusers/bureaucrat|bureaucrat]] or by a consensus of a group of [[Special:Listusers/sysop|sysops]]. Users who create and/or use such templates without authorization will be banned.}}
Either implement the rule or stop TK from making up rules. There was no word in an official place that making and using templates is now subject to bureaucrat-approval (it's NOT enough that even two sysops make a template together), and people get banned for it. Hardly sounds fair to me. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 05:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sid, your post is inappropriate because you haven't been appointed their advocate. It would be appropriate for them to post here, when back, protesting. You deciding, on your own, to say the act isn't vandalism, won't change the fact that it was. '''Vandalism is against our rules.''' Quit taking up causes to merely stir the pot. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::You forget that you also banned me for allegedly placing an unauthorized template. Besides, I don't ''have'' to be "appointed" to be the "advocate" of anybody. This isn't a court or a republic, it's a freaking WIKI. You just assert that people break rules, you assert that I am not authorized to speak for anybody else, you assert that this is a republic. I honestly don't want this to turn into another lengthy discussion. My request was sincere. The end. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*I understand what you have said, and your sticking up for them. The parties knew full well what they were doing when the made and/or stuck it on articles, I think we can agree on that. Being the thinking people they are, I know they at least considered the ramifications of their actions...at least I would like to hope they would. I am not even saying if I agree or not that some articles actually need a sign that says: "This is pure idiocy, and reading it might actually destroy your Brain!". What I am saying, however, is that without consultation, allowing anyone to slap a text box on article pages labeling it, essentially as "BS", can be very disruptive, tantamount to spray painting a wall, the equivalent of typed graffiti, ergo, Vandalism. There isn't any intellectual squabble between me and the parties, no vendetta. Those with power, in the exercising of it, always risk being mistaken. I honestly don't think I am, and if the powers that be disagree, they can and will reverse my actions. Won't be the first time that has happened here, nor I suspect the last. Just understand there wasn't anything personal in my actions, nor on the part of the other Sysop who agreed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::(Since you copied the thing from your Talk page, here is a copy of the reply)
::TK, the powers that be (=Andy) won't do anything, no matter what you do (with the exception of going against Andy's view of conservatism). You know this, I know this. Just look at the various complaints about Conservative or you on Andy's pages. The only times when Andy actually bothered to reply was in order to say "I don't see anything wrong." or even "Great job, [accused sysop]! You have my full support!"
::Heck, look at the Morality copright thing that got partially revived after the archive-creation. "Hey, what about the morality copyright gig?" - "I thought that was resolved because TK got permission." - "No, it wasn't since that wasn't the only source he copied from." - *no reply*
::Or even more extreme, look at the CWilson/Karajou issue that resulted with the ''complaining'' user being banned.
::So don't worry. Any complaint about you or any other sysop won't put you in any danger of any sort. You won't even have to worry about a slap on the wrist or a scolding "Nuh-uh! Bad sysop!". You are under Andy's shield. If anything, Andy will tell ''me'' to stop bothering him. *shrugs* You don't even have to answer in my complaint threads - just ignore me, the result will be the same.
::If you want to reply, do so, but don't expect me to answer. I have better things to do than discussing about why you think your actions are justified or not. I only try to bring the written rules more in line with what's actually being enforced.
::Just think about this: What is the difference between the template and the various edits that were reverted by Conservative in Theory of Evolution? Arguably, the attempts to remove the extreme anti-evolution bias could be seen as vandalism in your broad sense. We have rules, but they're ''extremely'' fuzzy. I'm only trying to trace the borders of these fuzzy areas. The Bible gave people ten laws, and nowadays, there are a few hundred/thousand or so of them. Me trying to refine the existing rules is the same mechanism - the realization that just six rules are not enough to properly cover such a complex place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I like your suggested rule, but I think that it should specify how many sysops you need to agree on your template (e.g. 5). --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:40, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Somewhere between 5 or 8, I would think more than fair, Benjamin. Now, Sid, part of the problem in discussing anything with you is your hyperbole. Could you at least make an attempt to tone down the flamboyant language? It brings a real anger and false urgency to anything you post about. Blocking for a short duration is more in tune with suspension than "banning" which traditionally means never to return. Arguing nit-picks about if this or that is "vandalism" isn't going to garner you support or replies from Andy and the others. Spend less of your posting on complaining and elevating all issues to VERY IMPORTANT status, and more can get done. I notice lots of people with good ideas for this place, and looking at their talk or user pages, also notice really nasty and vile remarks about Andy, and even his family. Surely you realize crap like that isn't going to get them to be willing to take people who do that seriously..... --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*The stub template seems entirely unnecessary to me. Why do we need a notice telling us an article is short? Anyone can see when an article needs expansion. A category for short articles is beneficial, because it will allow people to find short articles easily, but the stub template is superfluous and distracting. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's a boot in the tail. If random visitor X see short articles over and over they'll wander off of the site...If they see stub after stub they MAY think "Hey, I could do something on this article!" And register (if it's open) and expand the article. That's my take on that template anyways. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I agree, Sharon. Rob and Sharon, the template in question, the newest one, in essence it said "This Article Is Moronic", in the original version, it threatened "banning" for the contributor. They revised it to read other, later, but kept the snide tone. Then, as MoutainDew posted on my talk page, it was slapped on several articles by a couple of people. Something about doing that, and something about others here thinking that kind of behavior is acceptable, is whacked. Here are the three templates, the original and the "revised" editions:
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9999; background-color: #FFCCCC;"
|-
|align="center"|[[Image:Stop_hand.svg|50px|Warning]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' Be advised that editing with a factual bias grounded in reality is counter to the principles of Conservapedia, and if you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing for a period of time, or banned.
|}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' You are editing against the consensus of other users, and to promote your own bias in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. You are requested to cease and desist.
|}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' This article has been identified as containing biased, unsourced statements.
|}

and its location is here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit]] That earned the guys slapping it up a day or two off, just FYI. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Three things. Sharon, you can also search for stubs as a category (articles needing improvement) and see all the articles that need improvement. Convenient. Sid, would this rule apply to templates created by sysops? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it also applies to templates created by sysops. Case in point: The "Protected" template had been created and used by sysops, and due to a <s>hilarious</s> sad mix-up, I ended up in a fairly heated debate about it (after being temp-banned and unbanned). The template had even been temporarily blanked and had then been reworded by Ed and TK to form a sort of "consensus" version. In fact, it had been that template that triggered the whole "Don't insert templates without consulting the other sysops and/or Andy!!!" issue. So just being a sysop does not place you above this rule (hence the careful wording about one bureaucrat or a consensus of a few sysops). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*There wasn't any "consensus" version of the "Protected" template. Ed and I both agreed, from the outset of the convo, what it should contain. Quit trying to drive wedges, or make it a matter of two "sides". That's careful wording to subtly change history, to make it seem there was an issue, when there was not. Sysops should have to obtain the okay from a minimum of five of their peers before making/including system-wide templates. It is silly thinking that as part of the sites administration, that rules regarding housekeeping would apply to them the same as any casual user, someone who signed up 24 hours earlier. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Easy there. The key phrase right now is "Assume Good Faith". When I wrote "consensus" in quotation marks, I was referring to "consensus formed by two sysops, as opposed to the consensus described in my initial suggestion since the latter has more than just two sysops in mind".
::I'm not trying to "change history". That is kinda hard in a place where "history" is an easily accessible tab on virtually all pages. Additionally, I believe that I don't ''have'' to change history. It pretty much speaks for itself. If anybody wants to, I can construct a rough timeline of the events, complete with links to the pages in question. All the information is out there, it's just a question of knowing where to look. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:06, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I am glad you clarified what you meant. As to the number of Sysops, am I reading you correctly, you would prefer agreement of two as opposed to 5 or more? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I chose the "group of sysops" wording because I didn't really have a value in mind. But the "Protected" thing sorta showed that "two" is not enough (Ed and David are both sysops and formed the "consensus" to use it). Besides, I don't think that two sysops alone have the same "decision-making power level" as one sysop in critical cases.
::I still have no fixed value in mind, and ''I don't think there should be one''. Some cases will obviously require more input than others (the higher the impact on pages, the more sysops should be consulted - I'd rank the Protected template relatively low, but a radical template like "This article misrepresents facts and should be rewritten immediately by a more competent editor" should have some serious discussion before usage), so it should be evaluated on the fly by the editor who gets the idea and by the sysops who engage in the discussion.
::(And no, I do not suggest that anybody actually creates such a template - it was an extreme example.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:23, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Follow-up note: The "Protected" template in the end only required 3-4 sysops (if I remember correctly), and only 2-3 at a time. Things worked out. That's what I mean with "ranking relatively low" - it was apparent that there was no need for a full poll of 5+ sysops, just a few sysops communicating with each other about goals and implementation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Fair enough. BTW, the problem with the protected template, and consensus is, while Ed agreed to it, he expressly said it shouldn't be added to users own pages. So even with "consensus" unless communication is clear, and people actually abide by the intentions of the makers, it all falls apart. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why don't we have Ten Commandments? ==

Seems like it would be meaningful to have a full set of 10 commandments, showing that our inspiration comes from the Bible. Surely we can come up with 4 more.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 19:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==But some are more equal than others===

<s>1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Morality]
<s>2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. Please see Conservapedia's Manual of Style which assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article.</s>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Aesthetics] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Morality]
<s>3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.</s>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality]
4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.
<s>5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account. Advertisements are prohibited.<s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Breast_cancer]
6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.

So we are left with BC and AD and no wiki-bots. But there is no problem adding a ton of capricious rules to randomly block contributors. So THIS is what America would be like if it was run completely by the right wing Christian fundamentalist. Theocratic dictatorship at its best. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-04-11T20:01:12Z

Etaroced:

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[Articles for Deletion]] 
[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives'''

'''Sub-pages'''

[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative|User:Conservative]]''

|}

== ColinR ==

Deleted the archive I created last night for Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative

I just restored it. Colin, I beg of you, please don't start deleting history here, okay? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive was never deleted. Anyone who looks at the page history will realize this, all I did was move the archive out of the mainspace into the correct namespace, leaving a temporarily broken link, which the brilliant editor above me equates to it being deleted. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah? What is this? '''00:11, 10 April 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative Archive 1" (content was: '#REDIRECT Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1' (and the only contributor was 'ColinR'))'''--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:THAT WASN'T THE ARCHIVE!!! THAT IS A REDIRECT. LOOK AT THE FREAKIN' CONTENT LISTED!!! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Read above. Does the system not say it was an archive, Colin? When I cliked the link for the archive I made, it said the page had been deleted. The delete log says you deleted it. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Further, if you did anything to the archive I asked for help on last night, and you were among those who refused, and you came around tonight or earlier today and moved or fixed anything, without telling me, it is just as bad. Yes, you do have to inform, elite one. Still, the links to the archives were still missing on the Conervative/abuse page and the Sysop/Admin page that Philip was into. There were other posts asking what happened to the archives. Further insults will not be tolerated, Colin. You have had your very last warning. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:TK, your comment makes no sense, and you even admitted that I didn't delete the archive links. All I did was move the archives out of the mainspace to their correct spot, something that people have done before (think Sid) and you have no clue what's going on and flip out. I have not insulted you, only asked serious questions, and you respond with false accusations and threats. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Colin, I admitted no such thing. The system said, when I entered the link to the archive I created, that you had deleted it. If you deleted a re-direct, and replaced it, in another "Lone Ranger" stunt, elite one, without posting about, or telling me, you still forgot to replace the links to it! Other people noticed, and posted about it. ''Like I said, those days are over now, doing whatever you feel like, and you have had your final warning.'' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The archive link you created was in the mainspace, where it '''didn't''' belong. Thus I moved it out of the mainspace, only to realize I had moved it to the wrong spot, thus I moved it again to the correct spot (where it is now) and deleted the redirects, since one was in the mainspace and the other was a double redirect (and both were not needed). You accuse me of a lone ranger stunt, but your archiving seems to be just as "elitist" as my actions. Quit with the empty threats and baseless accusations. I'm getting tired of your false claims anytime you don't understand something. And I don't have to tell you every time I do something, you're not my keeper, nor is anyone on here. If you have a problem doing whatever they feel like, why not "complain" to almost every editor on this site. I'm through with this crap, if you have something valid and worthwhile to complain about, then we'll talk. Until then, GOOD DAY, SIR. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hmmm, I could have swore you said earlier you didn't delete anything, but now it seems you say you did. I am getting confused. And yes, Colin, things are changing, for the better, and you will start to communicate, with me, and the other Sysops. I very politely posted, asking for help with the archive, last night, and you didn't see fit to offer to help, like any of the Sysop's should have, that knew how to do it. That is one of your obligations in taking the job. If you didn't know or think that, you do now. I can't do anything to save you now, Colin. Your attitude marks you as someone not really needed here anymore, more a part of the problem, rather than the solution. It makes me sad, but it is now up to Andy to decide. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
''This is a copy of the post from Aschlafly's talk page. TK insisted that I post it here, too.''
{{QuoteBox|Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)}}
As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at [[Talk:Zach Johnson]]. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and sarcasm ==
While this is not abuse per say, it is a question of what is the appropriate conduct for a sysop? I continue to be concerned about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_evolution&diff=95497&oldid=95484 this edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473 this edit] which shows a disrespect for other editors on this site. Is this the type of example that is people are suggesting that be followed? (Yes, I know this is a slippery slope) Please picture a website were everyone behaved like TK has in this situation - not the conservative bias, but the disrespect. Is this the type of site that you (the admins) want to present? I am concerned that the admins are turning a blind eye to the sysops and allowing them free reign - they can do no wrong. This in turn makes it a very hostile and uncomfortable place for anyone who is not a sysop. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I feel uncomfortable here all the time, pretty much the same as at Wikipedia. The only difference is that it's much worse there.

:I disagree with the policy here which permits random newbies to start editing right away. I really hate all the backbiting, backstabbing, character assassination; carping, caviling, sneaky undermining, etc.!

:If it were up to me, I'd block much more aggressively than I have been.

:Maybe I'll just start doing that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to, Ed. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable here, as you are one of our best editors. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes Mtur! ''Not at all like your Sterling good behavior.'' We are appointed to keep the place on-policy, and on-track as friendly to the Conservative and Christian POV, as well as guard against Vandals. Either overt, ''or covert''. Get used to it. You, and others constantly disrespect people whose POV you disagree with. You are just sly and subtle doing it. You don't want to accept this is never going to be run like Wikipedia. Perhaps your energies could be used constructively, rather than just carping about what you don't like, and parroting the party line of those who you agree with? I am indeed sorry if you cannot accept some measure of levity, used to defuse a possibly explosive situation. It must get lonely in the Ivory Tower (that was more humor). Ed Poor, you should chat up the Webmaster, ask him about the situation in IRC with some of these people, it will be instructional, I am sure. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: TK, could you please point to any edits where I have been disrespectful to anyone? I have been 'online' for nearly two decades now (my first experiences were with a 300 baud modem and acoustic coupler to an 8 port BBS chat line) and I am well aware that when there are no body language or voice inflection cues, it is very easy for someone to misinterpret the emotion of the person on the other end of the text connection. Smilies or a j/k can help give a hint about what the person is writing. However, just with real life, if everything is said with such a wink, people begin to not take anything that person says seriously. I remain curious as to how any of these edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=84553&oldid=84515] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=86432&oldid=86373] were designed to be a measure of levity that would reduce the heightened emotions? Or where they written with the intent to enrage emotions? I cannot tell, and it remains up to the individual to determine if they are to see the best in someone or the worst in someone. I do not believe I am capable of writing anything that would have any emotional encumbrance that you would regard as not being insulting (I am not not trying to be insulting in this passage, just trying to state my perceptions) and thus attempt to remove any emotion from what is written. I may have a point of view and an opinion, but getting red in the face and pounding away at the keyboard is something I learned not to do on Usenet a decade and a half ago.
:: I am curious as to how you see this being run, if not like Wikipedia. What are the social norms? What are the rules? There are certainly more rules than have been set down in [[rules]]. When I am comfortable in understanding these rules and I have made the judgment as to if this is a place that I ''want'' to contribute to, then I shall. Until then, I find the community that is in the process of forming these rules to be incredibly interesting. Furthermore, I feel that it is more useful to help the community codify those rules as a place where any user can understand what is going to happen if he or she does something than it would be to go forth and write documents. As it is, there is still a bit of hostility to many of the writers of new material here. If you search [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Mtur&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 my contributions], you will see that I have contributed some to new material - there are a few articles that I've commented with as "rewrite." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*So, your time online mirrors my own, Mtur. I assume we are more or less contemporaries. The joke about Martha Stewart was indeed designed to defuse, however I can see someone who is defensive or indignant in their opinion thinking the comment was aimed at them, and that I certainly didn't want to happen. Maybe you don't watch much TV or know of her. However, you being online as long as you have, certainly know of this old dodge of blind-siding people as you did above, to support the views of those you agree with by making a public post, instead of privately contacting me and asking what I meant first. I have seen much of your work that is to be admired, your manipulative tactics, posted above, are not a part of that admiration. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I have stated [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3ATeamwork&diff=90300&oldid=90283 elsewhere], I prefer all communication to be public (perhaps I should put that on my user page too). As such, it remains difficult for me or anyone else to attribute something other than what I have said to me. It also constantly reminds me that I am in a public place and to be on my behavior - there will always be someone looking to trap me in words if I misspeak. I ask of you, have I shown you less respect or treated you with less dignity than you have shown me in the past? Alternatively, if I was to make the same comments you have made in the past, would I be banned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I don't ban people except for vandalism and the like. I have blocked users, shortly, when I know they are creating havoc, or doing things to marginalize Conservapedia. I certainly have posted several times, quite publicly, in opposition to some Sysop's actions, etc. This you well know. Spirited discourse is how I was raised. I was schooled by Jesuits. So, no, you wouldn't be banned for talk, of course not. I know of only one Sysop who has banned for talking. As I said, I publicly disagreed. But your argument about keeping everything publc puzzles me, from a logic point of view. Anyone can make up anything, and say it came from me or you, if they have a mind to. So to use that as an excuse to actually lessen dialog, seems odd to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking of NousEpirrhytos ==

I would like a comment on this situation, Nous was apparently banned for "attacks on the Bible" by Karajou, which apparently relates to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name this conversation] in which Nous expresses scholarly disagreement with the concept of Biblical literalism.

Even more disturbingly, users questioning Karajou's actions on his talk page have been informed by User:TK that regular users have no business questioning administrative actions. When asked if ''"Andy's promised freedom of speech excludes questioning or criticizing the Bible"'', user:TK responded ''"Yes indeed, that is exactly what I meant"''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*When quoting someone, Nematocyte, could you please not edit their quotes? Some might think you did it deliberately, to stir the pot, and we wouldn't want that, eh? And if you are going to complain about more than one Sysop, please make more than one header, one for each complaint. Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Do you disagree with the content of my condenced quote? Do you not intend to imply those things? In any case, I am not making a complaint against you, as you have not performed an administrative action in this case, only commented. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ahhh....just another snipe. I see. Very good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you disagree with my summation? Do you disagree that administrative comments on the case are relevant? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For the love of mud, TK, answer the user's questions rather than bickering. Nematocyte is being '''incredibly''' reasonable here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed, I would rather see answers than this pointless "sniping." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, [[User_talk:Karajou#Blocking|this is what we got so far]]. Answers would indeed be nice. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some of the Sysops seem fairly trigger-happy right now. Petrus and NousEpirrhytos were completely undeserving of banning. This along with the un/blocking of AmesG and PalMD give me pause for thought as to what is happening on this site at the moment. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 12:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, if you read some of TK's latest comments, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::According to some of TK's recent comments, one could conclude that this page should be speedily deleted - who are we to question or even criticize sysop decisions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what banning Petrus and NousEpirrhytos was meant to accomplish. It seems to me these bans were pointed at silencing their ''opinion'', rather than promoting '''good faith'''. Is this what I am supposed to take from this? And in the case of PalMD, running off someone with knowledge of the field because he disagrees with your ''opinion'', seems like a fairly poor way to run a site. What are we supposed to think of a site that does this? I know we all hate Wikipedia, but is it a liberal value to allow dissent? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're quoting, here is Karajou's reaction. It can be found on [[User talk:Karajou#Blocking|his User Talk page]] and on [[Talk:Bible]]:
{{QuoteBox|In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did. The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to edit the [[Bible]] article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. I only banned one individual when it started getting sour. This is Conservapedia...it is not "Liberalpedia".}}
:Just copy-pasting it here since it's quite relevant in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: The other person addressed in this is [[User:Petrus]], who also participated in the [[Talk:Bible]] discussion (and who got [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Petrus perma-banned] by TK recently for a similar-sounding reason). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there somewhere else we can post this where it will get a response from somebody, or am I just being impatient? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, this is pretty much the final destination of all sysop complaints. The previous station had been Andy's talk page (but the big box at the top now says to duke it out here and not there), and the only other option would be the Student Panel. And don't hold your breath. I don't honestly expect something to happen (though I still hope so) - look at the other complaints here (and on Conservative's extra-page). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Faith is important to most Americans. Any attempt to undermine faith will be frowned upon here, particularly if directed '''towards''' any particular user. I have tolerated much sarcasm, misdirection, fooling around, and so forth without really being forceful - and been told repeatedly by senior staff that my lenience is not acceptable. I would like to make it possible for liberals or dissenters to participate, because I hate to see anyone marginalized. Believe me, I know how it feels.

::But how many of you whom I have defended have ever expressed a single word of gratitude for all the hospitality you have received here? Go read the story of Jesus and the 10 lepers before you say another word about "abuse". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Two users were banned infinitely for the Bible talk (Did you read it?). THREE users were banned for questioning Karajou's behavior. I was among them, and ironically enough, I got banned right after my cry for help to you. <s>Thanks for your great support here, Ed. And thanks for letting us "liberals" and "dissenters" participate.</s> Oh wait. My bad, no sarcasm on Conservapedia. So yeah. Three people get banned for trying to defend two people who got banned (and are still perma-banned). It's a good thing that I don't really care how often I get banned - otherwise I'd really look the other way the next time I see abuse. And yes, I'm slightly bitter. Please don't ban me for it, I'll possibly get better if I can go a few hours or even days without getting banned. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh we are aware of just how <s>hostile</s> hospitable we have received here. Maybe its being forgotten in all of this but the editors of this site are giving something extremely valuable with our contributions. Without the editors there is NOTHING here, this place needs us far more than we need it. What do we really gain by contributing here? A place to voice our ideas? Not really, wikipedia would be the place to go for that. No, most of us originally came here as contributors. This love it or leave it attitude isn't going to fly. If all of us leave conservapedia we are not harmed in anyway, but if all of us leave conservapedia it is fatal. So who needs who? Who should be thanking who? [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Let us not forget in all of this that a user was banned for idealogical reasons by self-conscious sysop. NousEpirrhytos should be unbanned now, or we need to toss out the conservapedia commandments and just leave it as "All editors are equal but some are more equal than others" and bask in the warming glow of censorship, authoritarianism, capriciousness, and hypocrisy. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==I will just assume bad faith==
on the above issue. since there is no effort to respond, from Andy, Ed or TK. good to know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Myk just got banned for one month for questioning Karajou (see his talk page and Bible talk).'''
:Writing quick, I might be next. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, me too, probably. I just posted on Andy's page. Apparently we can't ask questions either. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Kinda sad that you can effectively be blocked for asking "Why?" after a sysop did something... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. Just...wow. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

(reading up) No effort to respond? Do you have any idea how many pages are on my watchlist? Try leaving a note on my [[user talk page]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
==This will probably earn me a ban==
but why was Sid banned by Karajou? Could someone just explain how his actions harmed conservapedia? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Dissent is against conservative values. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:: re. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]]'s comment: Seconded. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 13:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-04-11T19:56:46Z

Etaroced:

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[Articles for Deletion]] 
[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives'''

'''Sub-pages'''

[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative|User:Conservative]]''

|}

== ColinR ==

Deleted the archive I created last night for Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative

I just restored it. Colin, I beg of you, please don't start deleting history here, okay? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive was never deleted. Anyone who looks at the page history will realize this, all I did was move the archive out of the mainspace into the correct namespace, leaving a temporarily broken link, which the brilliant editor above me equates to it being deleted. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah? What is this? '''00:11, 10 April 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative Archive 1" (content was: '#REDIRECT Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1' (and the only contributor was 'ColinR'))'''--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:THAT WASN'T THE ARCHIVE!!! THAT IS A REDIRECT. LOOK AT THE FREAKIN' CONTENT LISTED!!! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Read above. Does the system not say it was an archive, Colin? When I cliked the link for the archive I made, it said the page had been deleted. The delete log says you deleted it. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Further, if you did anything to the archive I asked for help on last night, and you were among those who refused, and you came around tonight or earlier today and moved or fixed anything, without telling me, it is just as bad. Yes, you do have to inform, elite one. Still, the links to the archives were still missing on the Conervative/abuse page and the Sysop/Admin page that Philip was into. There were other posts asking what happened to the archives. Further insults will not be tolerated, Colin. You have had your very last warning. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:TK, your comment makes no sense, and you even admitted that I didn't delete the archive links. All I did was move the archives out of the mainspace to their correct spot, something that people have done before (think Sid) and you have no clue what's going on and flip out. I have not insulted you, only asked serious questions, and you respond with false accusations and threats. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Colin, I admitted no such thing. The system said, when I entered the link to the archive I created, that you had deleted it. If you deleted a re-direct, and replaced it, in another "Lone Ranger" stunt, elite one, without posting about, or telling me, you still forgot to replace the links to it! Other people noticed, and posted about it. ''Like I said, those days are over now, doing whatever you feel like, and you have had your final warning.'' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The archive link you created was in the mainspace, where it '''didn't''' belong. Thus I moved it out of the mainspace, only to realize I had moved it to the wrong spot, thus I moved it again to the correct spot (where it is now) and deleted the redirects, since one was in the mainspace and the other was a double redirect (and both were not needed). You accuse me of a lone ranger stunt, but your archiving seems to be just as "elitist" as my actions. Quit with the empty threats and baseless accusations. I'm getting tired of your false claims anytime you don't understand something. And I don't have to tell you every time I do something, you're not my keeper, nor is anyone on here. If you have a problem doing whatever they feel like, why not "complain" to almost every editor on this site. I'm through with this crap, if you have something valid and worthwhile to complain about, then we'll talk. Until then, GOOD DAY, SIR. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hmmm, I could have swore you said earlier you didn't delete anything, but now it seems you say you did. I am getting confused. And yes, Colin, things are changing, for the better, and you will start to communicate, with me, and the other Sysops. I very politely posted, asking for help with the archive, last night, and you didn't see fit to offer to help, like any of the Sysop's should have, that knew how to do it. That is one of your obligations in taking the job. If you didn't know or think that, you do now. I can't do anything to save you now, Colin. Your attitude marks you as someone not really needed here anymore, more a part of the problem, rather than the solution. It makes me sad, but it is now up to Andy to decide. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
''This is a copy of the post from Aschlafly's talk page. TK insisted that I post it here, too.''
{{QuoteBox|Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)}}
As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at [[Talk:Zach Johnson]]. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and sarcasm ==
While this is not abuse per say, it is a question of what is the appropriate conduct for a sysop? I continue to be concerned about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_evolution&diff=95497&oldid=95484 this edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473 this edit] which shows a disrespect for other editors on this site. Is this the type of example that is people are suggesting that be followed? (Yes, I know this is a slippery slope) Please picture a website were everyone behaved like TK has in this situation - not the conservative bias, but the disrespect. Is this the type of site that you (the admins) want to present? I am concerned that the admins are turning a blind eye to the sysops and allowing them free reign - they can do no wrong. This in turn makes it a very hostile and uncomfortable place for anyone who is not a sysop. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I feel uncomfortable here all the time, pretty much the same as at Wikipedia. The only difference is that it's much worse there.

:I disagree with the policy here which permits random newbies to start editing right away. I really hate all the backbiting, backstabbing, character assassination; carping, caviling, sneaky undermining, etc.!

:If it were up to me, I'd block much more aggressively than I have been.

:Maybe I'll just start doing that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to, Ed. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable here, as you are one of our best editors. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes Mtur! ''Not at all like your Sterling good behavior.'' We are appointed to keep the place on-policy, and on-track as friendly to the Conservative and Christian POV, as well as guard against Vandals. Either overt, ''or covert''. Get used to it. You, and others constantly disrespect people whose POV you disagree with. You are just sly and subtle doing it. You don't want to accept this is never going to be run like Wikipedia. Perhaps your energies could be used constructively, rather than just carping about what you don't like, and parroting the party line of those who you agree with? I am indeed sorry if you cannot accept some measure of levity, used to defuse a possibly explosive situation. It must get lonely in the Ivory Tower (that was more humor). Ed Poor, you should chat up the Webmaster, ask him about the situation in IRC with some of these people, it will be instructional, I am sure. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: TK, could you please point to any edits where I have been disrespectful to anyone? I have been 'online' for nearly two decades now (my first experiences were with a 300 baud modem and acoustic coupler to an 8 port BBS chat line) and I am well aware that when there are no body language or voice inflection cues, it is very easy for someone to misinterpret the emotion of the person on the other end of the text connection. Smilies or a j/k can help give a hint about what the person is writing. However, just with real life, if everything is said with such a wink, people begin to not take anything that person says seriously. I remain curious as to how any of these edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=84553&oldid=84515] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=86432&oldid=86373] were designed to be a measure of levity that would reduce the heightened emotions? Or where they written with the intent to enrage emotions? I cannot tell, and it remains up to the individual to determine if they are to see the best in someone or the worst in someone. I do not believe I am capable of writing anything that would have any emotional encumbrance that you would regard as not being insulting (I am not not trying to be insulting in this passage, just trying to state my perceptions) and thus attempt to remove any emotion from what is written. I may have a point of view and an opinion, but getting red in the face and pounding away at the keyboard is something I learned not to do on Usenet a decade and a half ago.
:: I am curious as to how you see this being run, if not like Wikipedia. What are the social norms? What are the rules? There are certainly more rules than have been set down in [[rules]]. When I am comfortable in understanding these rules and I have made the judgment as to if this is a place that I ''want'' to contribute to, then I shall. Until then, I find the community that is in the process of forming these rules to be incredibly interesting. Furthermore, I feel that it is more useful to help the community codify those rules as a place where any user can understand what is going to happen if he or she does something than it would be to go forth and write documents. As it is, there is still a bit of hostility to many of the writers of new material here. If you search [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Mtur&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 my contributions], you will see that I have contributed some to new material - there are a few articles that I've commented with as "rewrite." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*So, your time online mirrors my own, Mtur. I assume we are more or less contemporaries. The joke about Martha Stewart was indeed designed to defuse, however I can see someone who is defensive or indignant in their opinion thinking the comment was aimed at them, and that I certainly didn't want to happen. Maybe you don't watch much TV or know of her. However, you being online as long as you have, certainly know of this old dodge of blind-siding people as you did above, to support the views of those you agree with by making a public post, instead of privately contacting me and asking what I meant first. I have seen much of your work that is to be admired, your manipulative tactics, posted above, are not a part of that admiration. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I have stated [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3ATeamwork&diff=90300&oldid=90283 elsewhere], I prefer all communication to be public (perhaps I should put that on my user page too). As such, it remains difficult for me or anyone else to attribute something other than what I have said to me. It also constantly reminds me that I am in a public place and to be on my behavior - there will always be someone looking to trap me in words if I misspeak. I ask of you, have I shown you less respect or treated you with less dignity than you have shown me in the past? Alternatively, if I was to make the same comments you have made in the past, would I be banned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I don't ban people except for vandalism and the like. I have blocked users, shortly, when I know they are creating havoc, or doing things to marginalize Conservapedia. I certainly have posted several times, quite publicly, in opposition to some Sysop's actions, etc. This you well know. Spirited discourse is how I was raised. I was schooled by Jesuits. So, no, you wouldn't be banned for talk, of course not. I know of only one Sysop who has banned for talking. As I said, I publicly disagreed. But your argument about keeping everything publc puzzles me, from a logic point of view. Anyone can make up anything, and say it came from me or you, if they have a mind to. So to use that as an excuse to actually lessen dialog, seems odd to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking of NousEpirrhytos ==

I would like a comment on this situation, Nous was apparently banned for "attacks on the Bible" by Karajou, which apparently relates to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name this conversation] in which Nous expresses scholarly disagreement with the concept of Biblical literalism.

Even more disturbingly, users questioning Karajou's actions on his talk page have been informed by User:TK that regular users have no business questioning administrative actions. When asked if ''"Andy's promised freedom of speech excludes questioning or criticizing the Bible"'', user:TK responded ''"Yes indeed, that is exactly what I meant"''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*When quoting someone, Nematocyte, could you please not edit their quotes? Some might think you did it deliberately, to stir the pot, and we wouldn't want that, eh? And if you are going to complain about more than one Sysop, please make more than one header, one for each complaint. Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Do you disagree with the content of my condenced quote? Do you not intend to imply those things? In any case, I am not making a complaint against you, as you have not performed an administrative action in this case, only commented. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ahhh....just another snipe. I see. Very good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you disagree with my summation? Do you disagree that administrative comments on the case are relevant? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For the love of mud, TK, answer the user's questions rather than bickering. Nematocyte is being '''incredibly''' reasonable here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed, I would rather see answers than this pointless "sniping." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, [[User_talk:Karajou#Blocking|this is what we got so far]]. Answers would indeed be nice. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some of the Sysops seem fairly trigger-happy right now. Petrus and NousEpirrhytos were completely undeserving of banning. This along with the un/blocking of AmesG and PalMD give me pause for thought as to what is happening on this site at the moment. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 12:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, if you read some of TK's latest comments, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::According to some of TK's recent comments, one could conclude that this page should be speedily deleted - who are we to question or even criticize sysop decisions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what banning Petrus and NousEpirrhytos was meant to accomplish. It seems to me these bans were pointed at silencing their ''opinion'', rather than promoting '''good faith'''. Is this what I am supposed to take from this? And in the case of PalMD, running off someone with knowledge of the field because he disagrees with your ''opinion'', seems like a fairly poor way to run a site. What are we supposed to think of a site that does this? I know we all hate Wikipedia, but is it a liberal value to allow dissent? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're quoting, here is Karajou's reaction. It can be found on [[User talk:Karajou#Blocking|his User Talk page]] and on [[Talk:Bible]]:
{{QuoteBox|In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did. The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to edit the [[Bible]] article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. I only banned one individual when it started getting sour. This is Conservapedia...it is not "Liberalpedia".}}
:Just copy-pasting it here since it's quite relevant in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: The other person addressed in this is [[User:Petrus]], who also participated in the [[Talk:Bible]] discussion (and who got [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Petrus perma-banned] by TK recently for a similar-sounding reason). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there somewhere else we can post this where it will get a response from somebody, or am I just being impatient? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, this is pretty much the final destination of all sysop complaints. The previous station had been Andy's talk page (but the big box at the top now says to duke it out here and not there), and the only other option would be the Student Panel. And don't hold your breath. I don't honestly expect something to happen (though I still hope so) - look at the other complaints here (and on Conservative's extra-page). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Faith is important to most Americans. Any attempt to undermine faith will be frowned upon here, particularly if directed '''towards''' any particular user. I have tolerated much sarcasm, misdirection, fooling around, and so forth without really being forceful - and been told repeatedly by senior staff that my lenience is not acceptable. I would like to make it possible for liberals or dissenters to participate, because I hate to see anyone marginalized. Believe me, I know how it feels.

::But how many of you whom I have defended have ever expressed a single word of gratitude for all the hospitality you have received here? Go read the story of Jesus and the 10 lepers before you say another word about "abuse". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Two users were banned infinitely for the Bible talk (Did you read it?). THREE users were banned for questioning Karajou's behavior. I was among them, and ironically enough, I got banned right after my cry for help to you. <s>Thanks for your great support here, Ed. And thanks for letting us "liberals" and "dissenters" participate.</s> Oh wait. My bad, no sarcasm on Conservapedia. So yeah. Three people get banned for trying to defend two people who got banned (and are still perma-banned). It's a good thing that I don't really care how often I get banned - otherwise I'd really look the other way the next time I see abuse. And yes, I'm slightly bitter. Please don't ban me for it, I'll possibly get better if I can go a few hours or even days without getting banned. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh we are aware of just how <s>hostile</s> hospitable we have received here. Maybe its being forgotten in all of this but the editors of this site are giving something extremely valuable with our contributions. Without the editors there is NOTHING here, this place needs us far more than we need it. What do we really gain by contributing here? A place to voice our ideas? Not really, wikipedia would be the place to go for that. No, most of us originally came here as contributors. This love it or leave it attitude isn't going to fly. If all of us leave conservapedia we are not harmed in anyway, but if all of us leave conservapedia it is fatal. So who needs who? Who should be thanking who? [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==I will just assume bad faith==
on the above issue. since there is no effort to respond, from Andy, Ed or TK. good to know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Myk just got banned for one month for questioning Karajou (see his talk page and Bible talk).'''
:Writing quick, I might be next. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, me too, probably. I just posted on Andy's page. Apparently we can't ask questions either. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Kinda sad that you can effectively be blocked for asking "Why?" after a sysop did something... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. Just...wow. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

(reading up) No effort to respond? Do you have any idea how many pages are on my watchlist? Try leaving a note on my [[user talk page]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
==This will probably earn me a ban==
but why was Sid banned by Karajou? Could someone just explain how his actions harmed conservapedia? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Dissent is against conservative values. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:: re. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]]'s comment: Seconded. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 13:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-04-11T19:56:27Z

Etaroced:

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[Articles for Deletion]] 
[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives'''

'''Sub-pages'''

[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative|User:Conservative]]''

|}

== ColinR ==

Deleted the archive I created last night for Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative

I just restored it. Colin, I beg of you, please don't start deleting history here, okay? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive was never deleted. Anyone who looks at the page history will realize this, all I did was move the archive out of the mainspace into the correct namespace, leaving a temporarily broken link, which the brilliant editor above me equates to it being deleted. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah? What is this? '''00:11, 10 April 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative Archive 1" (content was: '#REDIRECT Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1' (and the only contributor was 'ColinR'))'''--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:THAT WASN'T THE ARCHIVE!!! THAT IS A REDIRECT. LOOK AT THE FREAKIN' CONTENT LISTED!!! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Read above. Does the system not say it was an archive, Colin? When I cliked the link for the archive I made, it said the page had been deleted. The delete log says you deleted it. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Further, if you did anything to the archive I asked for help on last night, and you were among those who refused, and you came around tonight or earlier today and moved or fixed anything, without telling me, it is just as bad. Yes, you do have to inform, elite one. Still, the links to the archives were still missing on the Conervative/abuse page and the Sysop/Admin page that Philip was into. There were other posts asking what happened to the archives. Further insults will not be tolerated, Colin. You have had your very last warning. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:TK, your comment makes no sense, and you even admitted that I didn't delete the archive links. All I did was move the archives out of the mainspace to their correct spot, something that people have done before (think Sid) and you have no clue what's going on and flip out. I have not insulted you, only asked serious questions, and you respond with false accusations and threats. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Colin, I admitted no such thing. The system said, when I entered the link to the archive I created, that you had deleted it. If you deleted a re-direct, and replaced it, in another "Lone Ranger" stunt, elite one, without posting about, or telling me, you still forgot to replace the links to it! Other people noticed, and posted about it. ''Like I said, those days are over now, doing whatever you feel like, and you have had your final warning.'' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The archive link you created was in the mainspace, where it '''didn't''' belong. Thus I moved it out of the mainspace, only to realize I had moved it to the wrong spot, thus I moved it again to the correct spot (where it is now) and deleted the redirects, since one was in the mainspace and the other was a double redirect (and both were not needed). You accuse me of a lone ranger stunt, but your archiving seems to be just as "elitist" as my actions. Quit with the empty threats and baseless accusations. I'm getting tired of your false claims anytime you don't understand something. And I don't have to tell you every time I do something, you're not my keeper, nor is anyone on here. If you have a problem doing whatever they feel like, why not "complain" to almost every editor on this site. I'm through with this crap, if you have something valid and worthwhile to complain about, then we'll talk. Until then, GOOD DAY, SIR. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hmmm, I could have swore you said earlier you didn't delete anything, but now it seems you say you did. I am getting confused. And yes, Colin, things are changing, for the better, and you will start to communicate, with me, and the other Sysops. I very politely posted, asking for help with the archive, last night, and you didn't see fit to offer to help, like any of the Sysop's should have, that knew how to do it. That is one of your obligations in taking the job. If you didn't know or think that, you do now. I can't do anything to save you now, Colin. Your attitude marks you as someone not really needed here anymore, more a part of the problem, rather than the solution. It makes me sad, but it is now up to Andy to decide. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
''This is a copy of the post from Aschlafly's talk page. TK insisted that I post it here, too.''
{{QuoteBox|Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)}}
As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at [[Talk:Zach Johnson]]. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and sarcasm ==
While this is not abuse per say, it is a question of what is the appropriate conduct for a sysop? I continue to be concerned about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_evolution&diff=95497&oldid=95484 this edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473 this edit] which shows a disrespect for other editors on this site. Is this the type of example that is people are suggesting that be followed? (Yes, I know this is a slippery slope) Please picture a website were everyone behaved like TK has in this situation - not the conservative bias, but the disrespect. Is this the type of site that you (the admins) want to present? I am concerned that the admins are turning a blind eye to the sysops and allowing them free reign - they can do no wrong. This in turn makes it a very hostile and uncomfortable place for anyone who is not a sysop. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I feel uncomfortable here all the time, pretty much the same as at Wikipedia. The only difference is that it's much worse there.

:I disagree with the policy here which permits random newbies to start editing right away. I really hate all the backbiting, backstabbing, character assassination; carping, caviling, sneaky undermining, etc.!

:If it were up to me, I'd block much more aggressively than I have been.

:Maybe I'll just start doing that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to, Ed. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable here, as you are one of our best editors. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes Mtur! ''Not at all like your Sterling good behavior.'' We are appointed to keep the place on-policy, and on-track as friendly to the Conservative and Christian POV, as well as guard against Vandals. Either overt, ''or covert''. Get used to it. You, and others constantly disrespect people whose POV you disagree with. You are just sly and subtle doing it. You don't want to accept this is never going to be run like Wikipedia. Perhaps your energies could be used constructively, rather than just carping about what you don't like, and parroting the party line of those who you agree with? I am indeed sorry if you cannot accept some measure of levity, used to defuse a possibly explosive situation. It must get lonely in the Ivory Tower (that was more humor). Ed Poor, you should chat up the Webmaster, ask him about the situation in IRC with some of these people, it will be instructional, I am sure. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: TK, could you please point to any edits where I have been disrespectful to anyone? I have been 'online' for nearly two decades now (my first experiences were with a 300 baud modem and acoustic coupler to an 8 port BBS chat line) and I am well aware that when there are no body language or voice inflection cues, it is very easy for someone to misinterpret the emotion of the person on the other end of the text connection. Smilies or a j/k can help give a hint about what the person is writing. However, just with real life, if everything is said with such a wink, people begin to not take anything that person says seriously. I remain curious as to how any of these edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=84553&oldid=84515] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=86432&oldid=86373] were designed to be a measure of levity that would reduce the heightened emotions? Or where they written with the intent to enrage emotions? I cannot tell, and it remains up to the individual to determine if they are to see the best in someone or the worst in someone. I do not believe I am capable of writing anything that would have any emotional encumbrance that you would regard as not being insulting (I am not not trying to be insulting in this passage, just trying to state my perceptions) and thus attempt to remove any emotion from what is written. I may have a point of view and an opinion, but getting red in the face and pounding away at the keyboard is something I learned not to do on Usenet a decade and a half ago.
:: I am curious as to how you see this being run, if not like Wikipedia. What are the social norms? What are the rules? There are certainly more rules than have been set down in [[rules]]. When I am comfortable in understanding these rules and I have made the judgment as to if this is a place that I ''want'' to contribute to, then I shall. Until then, I find the community that is in the process of forming these rules to be incredibly interesting. Furthermore, I feel that it is more useful to help the community codify those rules as a place where any user can understand what is going to happen if he or she does something than it would be to go forth and write documents. As it is, there is still a bit of hostility to many of the writers of new material here. If you search [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Mtur&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 my contributions], you will see that I have contributed some to new material - there are a few articles that I've commented with as "rewrite." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*So, your time online mirrors my own, Mtur. I assume we are more or less contemporaries. The joke about Martha Stewart was indeed designed to defuse, however I can see someone who is defensive or indignant in their opinion thinking the comment was aimed at them, and that I certainly didn't want to happen. Maybe you don't watch much TV or know of her. However, you being online as long as you have, certainly know of this old dodge of blind-siding people as you did above, to support the views of those you agree with by making a public post, instead of privately contacting me and asking what I meant first. I have seen much of your work that is to be admired, your manipulative tactics, posted above, are not a part of that admiration. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I have stated [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3ATeamwork&diff=90300&oldid=90283 elsewhere], I prefer all communication to be public (perhaps I should put that on my user page too). As such, it remains difficult for me or anyone else to attribute something other than what I have said to me. It also constantly reminds me that I am in a public place and to be on my behavior - there will always be someone looking to trap me in words if I misspeak. I ask of you, have I shown you less respect or treated you with less dignity than you have shown me in the past? Alternatively, if I was to make the same comments you have made in the past, would I be banned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I don't ban people except for vandalism and the like. I have blocked users, shortly, when I know they are creating havoc, or doing things to marginalize Conservapedia. I certainly have posted several times, quite publicly, in opposition to some Sysop's actions, etc. This you well know. Spirited discourse is how I was raised. I was schooled by Jesuits. So, no, you wouldn't be banned for talk, of course not. I know of only one Sysop who has banned for talking. As I said, I publicly disagreed. But your argument about keeping everything publc puzzles me, from a logic point of view. Anyone can make up anything, and say it came from me or you, if they have a mind to. So to use that as an excuse to actually lessen dialog, seems odd to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking of NousEpirrhytos ==

I would like a comment on this situation, Nous was apparently banned for "attacks on the Bible" by Karajou, which apparently relates to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name this conversation] in which Nous expresses scholarly disagreement with the concept of Biblical literalism.

Even more disturbingly, users questioning Karajou's actions on his talk page have been informed by User:TK that regular users have no business questioning administrative actions. When asked if ''"Andy's promised freedom of speech excludes questioning or criticizing the Bible"'', user:TK responded ''"Yes indeed, that is exactly what I meant"''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*When quoting someone, Nematocyte, could you please not edit their quotes? Some might think you did it deliberately, to stir the pot, and we wouldn't want that, eh? And if you are going to complain about more than one Sysop, please make more than one header, one for each complaint. Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Do you disagree with the content of my condenced quote? Do you not intend to imply those things? In any case, I am not making a complaint against you, as you have not performed an administrative action in this case, only commented. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ahhh....just another snipe. I see. Very good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you disagree with my summation? Do you disagree that administrative comments on the case are relevant? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For the love of mud, TK, answer the user's questions rather than bickering. Nematocyte is being '''incredibly''' reasonable here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed, I would rather see answers than this pointless "sniping." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, [[User_talk:Karajou#Blocking|this is what we got so far]]. Answers would indeed be nice. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some of the Sysops seem fairly trigger-happy right now. Petrus and NousEpirrhytos were completely undeserving of banning. This along with the un/blocking of AmesG and PalMD give me pause for thought as to what is happening on this site at the moment. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 12:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, if you read some of TK's latest comments, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::According to some of TK's recent comments, one could conclude that this page should be speedily deleted - who are we to question or even criticize sysop decisions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what banning Petrus and NousEpirrhytos was meant to accomplish. It seems to me these bans were pointed at silencing their ''opinion'', rather than promoting '''good faith'''. Is this what I am supposed to take from this? And in the case of PalMD, running off someone with knowledge of the field because he disagrees with your ''opinion'', seems like a fairly poor way to run a site. What are we supposed to think of a site that does this? I know we all hate Wikipedia, but is it a liberal value to allow dissent? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're quoting, here is Karajou's reaction. It can be found on [[User talk:Karajou#Blocking|his User Talk page]] and on [[Talk:Bible]]:
{{QuoteBox|In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did. The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to edit the [[Bible]] article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. I only banned one individual when it started getting sour. This is Conservapedia...it is not "Liberalpedia".}}
:Just copy-pasting it here since it's quite relevant in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: The other person addressed in this is [[User:Petrus]], who also participated in the [[Talk:Bible]] discussion (and who got [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Petrus perma-banned] by TK recently for a similar-sounding reason). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there somewhere else we can post this where it will get a response from somebody, or am I just being impatient? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, this is pretty much the final destination of all sysop complaints. The previous station had been Andy's talk page (but the big box at the top now says to duke it out here and not there), and the only other option would be the Student Panel. And don't hold your breath. I don't honestly expect something to happen (though I still hope so) - look at the other complaints here (and on Conservative's extra-page). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Faith is important to most Americans. Any attempt to undermine faith will be frowned upon here, particularly if directed '''towards''' any particular user. I have tolerated much sarcasm, misdirection, fooling around, and so forth without really being forceful - and been told repeatedly by senior staff that my lenience is not acceptable. I would like to make it possible for liberals or dissenters to participate, because I hate to see anyone marginalized. Believe me, I know how it feels.

::But how many of you whom I have defended have ever expressed a single word of gratitude for all the hospitality you have received here? Go read the story of Jesus and the 10 lepers before you say another word about "abuse". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Two users were banned infinitely for the Bible talk (Did you read it?). THREE users were banned for questioning Karajou's behavior. I was among them, and ironically enough, I got banned right after my cry for help to you. <s>Thanks for your great support here, Ed. And thanks for letting us "liberals" and "dissenters" participate.</s> Oh wait. My bad, no sarcasm on Conservapedia. So yeah. Three people get banned for trying to defend two people who got banned (and are still perma-banned). It's a good thing that I don't really care how often I get banned - otherwise I'd really look the other way the next time I see abuse. And yes, I'm slightly bitter. Please don't ban me for it, I'll possibly get better if I can go a few hours or even days without getting banned. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh we are aware of just how <s>hostile<s> hospitable we have received here. Maybe its being forgotten in all of this but the editors of this site are giving something extremely valuable with our contributions. Without the editors there is NOTHING here, this place needs us far more than we need it. What do we really gain by contributing here? A place to voice our ideas? Not really, wikipedia would be the place to go for that. No, most of us originally came here as contributors. This love it or leave it attitude isn't going to fly. If all of us leave conservapedia we are not harmed in anyway, but if all of us leave conservapedia it is fatal. So who needs who? Who should be thanking who? [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==I will just assume bad faith==
on the above issue. since there is no effort to respond, from Andy, Ed or TK. good to know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Myk just got banned for one month for questioning Karajou (see his talk page and Bible talk).'''
:Writing quick, I might be next. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, me too, probably. I just posted on Andy's page. Apparently we can't ask questions either. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Kinda sad that you can effectively be blocked for asking "Why?" after a sysop did something... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. Just...wow. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

(reading up) No effort to respond? Do you have any idea how many pages are on my watchlist? Try leaving a note on my [[user talk page]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
==This will probably earn me a ban==
but why was Sid banned by Karajou? Could someone just explain how his actions harmed conservapedia? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Dissent is against conservative values. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:: re. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]]'s comment: Seconded. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 13:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Etaroced

2007-04-11T17:40:49Z

Etaroced:

Please fix any problems you see with [[talk.orgins]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:I restored your deleted text at [[Pseudogene]] to [[User:Mtur/Pseudogene]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, see ya later (I expect). [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh, I am always around in one form or another :). Its sockpuppets all the way down. :) [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-04-11T17:30:05Z

Etaroced:

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[Articles for Deletion]] 
[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives'''

'''Sub-pages'''

[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative|User:Conservative]]''

|}

== ColinR ==

Deleted the archive I created last night for Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative

I just restored it. Colin, I beg of you, please don't start deleting history here, okay? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive was never deleted. Anyone who looks at the page history will realize this, all I did was move the archive out of the mainspace into the correct namespace, leaving a temporarily broken link, which the brilliant editor above me equates to it being deleted. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah? What is this? '''00:11, 10 April 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative Archive 1" (content was: '#REDIRECT Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1' (and the only contributor was 'ColinR'))'''--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:THAT WASN'T THE ARCHIVE!!! THAT IS A REDIRECT. LOOK AT THE FREAKIN' CONTENT LISTED!!! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Read above. Does the system not say it was an archive, Colin? When I cliked the link for the archive I made, it said the page had been deleted. The delete log says you deleted it. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Further, if you did anything to the archive I asked for help on last night, and you were among those who refused, and you came around tonight or earlier today and moved or fixed anything, without telling me, it is just as bad. Yes, you do have to inform, elite one. Still, the links to the archives were still missing on the Conervative/abuse page and the Sysop/Admin page that Philip was into. There were other posts asking what happened to the archives. Further insults will not be tolerated, Colin. You have had your very last warning. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:TK, your comment makes no sense, and you even admitted that I didn't delete the archive links. All I did was move the archives out of the mainspace to their correct spot, something that people have done before (think Sid) and you have no clue what's going on and flip out. I have not insulted you, only asked serious questions, and you respond with false accusations and threats. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Colin, I admitted no such thing. The system said, when I entered the link to the archive I created, that you had deleted it. If you deleted a re-direct, and replaced it, in another "Lone Ranger" stunt, elite one, without posting about, or telling me, you still forgot to replace the links to it! Other people noticed, and posted about it. ''Like I said, those days are over now, doing whatever you feel like, and you have had your final warning.'' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The archive link you created was in the mainspace, where it '''didn't''' belong. Thus I moved it out of the mainspace, only to realize I had moved it to the wrong spot, thus I moved it again to the correct spot (where it is now) and deleted the redirects, since one was in the mainspace and the other was a double redirect (and both were not needed). You accuse me of a lone ranger stunt, but your archiving seems to be just as "elitist" as my actions. Quit with the empty threats and baseless accusations. I'm getting tired of your false claims anytime you don't understand something. And I don't have to tell you every time I do something, you're not my keeper, nor is anyone on here. If you have a problem doing whatever they feel like, why not "complain" to almost every editor on this site. I'm through with this crap, if you have something valid and worthwhile to complain about, then we'll talk. Until then, GOOD DAY, SIR. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hmmm, I could have swore you said earlier you didn't delete anything, but now it seems you say you did. I am getting confused. And yes, Colin, things are changing, for the better, and you will start to communicate, with me, and the other Sysops. I very politely posted, asking for help with the archive, last night, and you didn't see fit to offer to help, like any of the Sysop's should have, that knew how to do it. That is one of your obligations in taking the job. If you didn't know or think that, you do now. I can't do anything to save you now, Colin. Your attitude marks you as someone not really needed here anymore, more a part of the problem, rather than the solution. It makes me sad, but it is now up to Andy to decide. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
''This is a copy of the post from Aschlafly's talk page. TK insisted that I post it here, too.''
{{QuoteBox|Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)}}
As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at [[Talk:Zach Johnson]]. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and sarcasm ==
While this is not abuse per say, it is a question of what is the appropriate conduct for a sysop? I continue to be concerned about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_evolution&diff=95497&oldid=95484 this edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473 this edit] which shows a disrespect for other editors on this site. Is this the type of example that is people are suggesting that be followed? (Yes, I know this is a slippery slope) Please picture a website were everyone behaved like TK has in this situation - not the conservative bias, but the disrespect. Is this the type of site that you (the admins) want to present? I am concerned that the admins are turning a blind eye to the sysops and allowing them free reign - they can do no wrong. This in turn makes it a very hostile and uncomfortable place for anyone who is not a sysop. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I feel uncomfortable here all the time, pretty much the same as at Wikipedia. The only difference is that it's much worse there.

:I disagree with the policy here which permits random newbies to start editing right away. I really hate all the backbiting, backstabbing, character assassination; carping, caviling, sneaky undermining, etc.!

:If it were up to me, I'd block much more aggressively than I have been.

:Maybe I'll just start doing that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to, Ed. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable here, as you are one of our best editors. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes Mtur! ''Not at all like your Sterling good behavior.'' We are appointed to keep the place on-policy, and on-track as friendly to the Conservative and Christian POV, as well as guard against Vandals. Either overt, ''or covert''. Get used to it. You, and others constantly disrespect people whose POV you disagree with. You are just sly and subtle doing it. You don't want to accept this is never going to be run like Wikipedia. Perhaps your energies could be used constructively, rather than just carping about what you don't like, and parroting the party line of those who you agree with? I am indeed sorry if you cannot accept some measure of levity, used to defuse a possibly explosive situation. It must get lonely in the Ivory Tower (that was more humor). Ed Poor, you should chat up the Webmaster, ask him about the situation in IRC with some of these people, it will be instructional, I am sure. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: TK, could you please point to any edits where I have been disrespectful to anyone? I have been 'online' for nearly two decades now (my first experiences were with a 300 baud modem and acoustic coupler to an 8 port BBS chat line) and I am well aware that when there are no body language or voice inflection cues, it is very easy for someone to misinterpret the emotion of the person on the other end of the text connection. Smilies or a j/k can help give a hint about what the person is writing. However, just with real life, if everything is said with such a wink, people begin to not take anything that person says seriously. I remain curious as to how any of these edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=84553&oldid=84515] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=86432&oldid=86373] were designed to be a measure of levity that would reduce the heightened emotions? Or where they written with the intent to enrage emotions? I cannot tell, and it remains up to the individual to determine if they are to see the best in someone or the worst in someone. I do not believe I am capable of writing anything that would have any emotional encumbrance that you would regard as not being insulting (I am not not trying to be insulting in this passage, just trying to state my perceptions) and thus attempt to remove any emotion from what is written. I may have a point of view and an opinion, but getting red in the face and pounding away at the keyboard is something I learned not to do on Usenet a decade and a half ago.
:: I am curious as to how you see this being run, if not like Wikipedia. What are the social norms? What are the rules? There are certainly more rules than have been set down in [[rules]]. When I am comfortable in understanding these rules and I have made the judgment as to if this is a place that I ''want'' to contribute to, then I shall. Until then, I find the community that is in the process of forming these rules to be incredibly interesting. Furthermore, I feel that it is more useful to help the community codify those rules as a place where any user can understand what is going to happen if he or she does something than it would be to go forth and write documents. As it is, there is still a bit of hostility to many of the writers of new material here. If you search [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Mtur&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 my contributions], you will see that I have contributed some to new material - there are a few articles that I've commented with as "rewrite." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*So, your time online mirrors my own, Mtur. I assume we are more or less contemporaries. The joke about Martha Stewart was indeed designed to defuse, however I can see someone who is defensive or indignant in their opinion thinking the comment was aimed at them, and that I certainly didn't want to happen. Maybe you don't watch much TV or know of her. However, you being online as long as you have, certainly know of this old dodge of blind-siding people as you did above, to support the views of those you agree with by making a public post, instead of privately contacting me and asking what I meant first. I have seen much of your work that is to be admired, your manipulative tactics, posted above, are not a part of that admiration. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I have stated [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3ATeamwork&diff=90300&oldid=90283 elsewhere], I prefer all communication to be public (perhaps I should put that on my user page too). As such, it remains difficult for me or anyone else to attribute something other than what I have said to me. It also constantly reminds me that I am in a public place and to be on my behavior - there will always be someone looking to trap me in words if I misspeak. I ask of you, have I shown you less respect or treated you with less dignity than you have shown me in the past? Alternatively, if I was to make the same comments you have made in the past, would I be banned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I don't ban people except for vandalism and the like. I have blocked users, shortly, when I know they are creating havoc, or doing things to marginalize Conservapedia. I certainly have posted several times, quite publicly, in opposition to some Sysop's actions, etc. This you well know. Spirited discourse is how I was raised. I was schooled by Jesuits. So, no, you wouldn't be banned for talk, of course not. I know of only one Sysop who has banned for talking. As I said, I publicly disagreed. But your argument about keeping everything publc puzzles me, from a logic point of view. Anyone can make up anything, and say it came from me or you, if they have a mind to. So to use that as an excuse to actually lessen dialog, seems odd to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking of NousEpirrhytos ==

I would like a comment on this situation, Nous was apparently banned for "attacks on the Bible" by Karajou, which apparently relates to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name this conversation] in which Nous expresses scholarly disagreement with the concept of Biblical literalism.

Even more disturbingly, users questioning Karajou's actions on his talk page have been informed by User:TK that regular users have no business questioning administrative actions. When asked if ''"Andy's promised freedom of speech excludes questioning or criticizing the Bible"'', user:TK responded ''"Yes indeed, that is exactly what I meant"''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*When quoting someone, Nematocyte, could you please not edit their quotes? Some might think you did it deliberately, to stir the pot, and we wouldn't want that, eh? And if you are going to complain about more than one Sysop, please make more than one header, one for each complaint. Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Do you disagree with the content of my condenced quote? Do you not intend to imply those things? In any case, I am not making a complaint against you, as you have not performed an administrative action in this case, only commented. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ahhh....just another snipe. I see. Very good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you disagree with my summation? Do you disagree that administrative comments on the case are relevant? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For the love of mud, TK, answer the user's questions rather than bickering. Nematocyte is being '''incredibly''' reasonable here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed, I would rather see answers than this pointless "sniping." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, [[User_talk:Karajou#Blocking|this is what we got so far]]. Answers would indeed be nice. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some of the Sysops seem fairly trigger-happy right now. Petrus and NousEpirrhytos were completely undeserving of banning. This along with the un/blocking of AmesG and PalMD give me pause for thought as to what is happening on this site at the moment. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 12:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, if you read some of TK's latest comments, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::According to some of TK's recent comments, one could conclude that this page should be speedily deleted - who are we to question or even criticize sysop decisions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what banning Petrus and NousEpirrhytos was meant to accomplish. It seems to me these bans were pointed at silencing their ''opinion'', rather than promoting '''good faith'''. Is this what I am supposed to take from this? And in the case of PalMD, running off someone with knowledge of the field because he disagrees with your ''opinion'', seems like a fairly poor way to run a site. What are we supposed to think of a site that does this? I know we all hate Wikipedia, but is it a liberal value to allow dissent? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're quoting, here is Karajou's reaction. It can be found on [[User talk:Karajou#Blocking|his User Talk page]] and on [[Talk:Bible]]:
{{QuoteBox|In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did. The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to edit the [[Bible]] article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. I only banned one individual when it started getting sour. This is Conservapedia...it is not "Liberalpedia".}}
:Just copy-pasting it here since it's quite relevant in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: The other person addressed in this is [[User:Petrus]], who also participated in the [[Talk:Bible]] discussion (and who got [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Petrus perma-banned] by TK recently for a similar-sounding reason). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there somewhere else we can post this where it will get a response from somebody, or am I just being impatient? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, this is pretty much the final destination of all sysop complaints. The previous station had been Andy's talk page (but the big box at the top now says to duke it out here and not there), and the only other option would be the Student Panel. And don't hold your breath. I don't honestly expect something to happen (though I still hope so) - look at the other complaints here (and on Conservative's extra-page). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==I will just assume bad faith==
on the above issue. since there is no effort to respond, from Andy, Ed or TK. good to know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Myk just got banned for one month for questioning Karajou (see his talk page and Bible talk).'''
:Writing quick, I might be next. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, me too, probably. I just posted on Andy's page. Apparently we can't ask questions either. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Kinda sad that you can effectively be blocked for asking "Why?" after a sysop did something... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. Just...wow. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==This will probably earn me a ban==
but why was Sid banned by Karajou? Could someone just explain how his actions harmed conservapedia? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Dissent is against conservative values. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Psychology

2007-04-10T20:13:14Z

Etaroced:

'''Psychology''' is the scientific study and evaluation of [[mind]] and [[behavior]]. Psychological research focuses on many sub-topics including: [[personality]], behavior, [[addiction]], [[learning]], [[value systems]], and [[relationships]]. Psychology can also refer to the application of that knowledge to various spheres of human activity, including correcting problems that affect individuals' daily lives and the treatment of mental health issues.

The word psychology comes from the ancient Greek ψυχή psyche ("soul," "mind") and -λογία -ology ("study").

== History ==

== Fields of Psychology ==

*[[Behavioral psychology]] studies the organism as purely an environment and behavioral outcome interaction.

*[[Biological psychology]] is the study of the biological underpinnings of behavior, mental states (e.g., emotion), and mental health.

*[[Clinical psychology]]

*[[Cognitive psychology]] is the branch of psychology that explores how cognitive processes influence behavior. Research in this field focuses on topics such as learning, perception, memory, attention, and information processing.

*[[Community psychology]]

*[[Developmental psychology]] is the study of how mental processes and behavior change with aging.

*[[Evolutionary psychology]] attempts to define psychology and behavior as products of an evolutionary history. They strive to be the [[functional morphology | functional morphologist]] of psychology.

*[[Health psychology/behavioral medicine]] focuses on the impact of psychological factors on behaviors that are relevant to physical health. Researchers in this field study topics such as substance abuse, obesity, and exercise.

*[[Industrial/organizational psychology]]

*[[Neuropsychology]]

*[[School psychology]] focuses on helping students succeed academically.

*[[Social psychology]] is the study of social behavior or interpersonal interactions. Social psychologists study issues such as the way in which attitudes towards other people are formed, or the effect that our perceptions of another person's behavior have on our interactions with that person.

== Research in Psychology ==

[[Category:Science]]

Psychology

2007-04-10T20:11:31Z

Etaroced:

'''Psychology''' is the scientific study and evaluation of [[mind]] and [[behavior]]. Psychological research focuses on many sub-topics including: [[personality]], behavior, [[addiction]], [[learning]], [[value systems]], and [[relationships]]. Psychology can also refer to the application of that knowledge to various spheres of human activity, including correcting problems that affect individuals' daily lives and the treatment of mental health issues.

The word psychology comes from the ancient Greek ψυχή psyche ("soul," "mind") and -λογία -ology ("study").

== History ==

== Fields of Psychology ==

*[[Biological psychology is the study of the biological underpinnings of behavior, mental states (e.g., emotion), and mental health.

*[[Clinical psychology]]

*[[Cognitive psychology]] is the branch of psychology that explores how cognitive processes influence behavior. Research in this field focuses on topics such as learning, perception, memory, attention, and information processing.

*[[Community psychology]]

*[[Developmental psychology]] is the study of how mental processes and behavior change with aging.

*[[Evolutionary psychology]] attempts to define psychology and behavior as products of an evolutionary history. They strive to be the [[functional morphology | functional morphologist]] of psychology.

*[[Health psychology/behavioral medicine]] focuses on the impact of psychological factors on behaviors that are relevant to physical health. Researchers in this field study topics such as substance abuse, obesity, and exercise.

*[[Industrial/organizational psychology]]

*[[Neuropsychology]]

*[[School psychology]] focuses on helping students succeed academically.

*[[Social psychology]] is the study of social behavior or interpersonal interactions. Social psychologists study issues such as the way in which attitudes towards other people are formed, or the effect that our perceptions of another person's behavior have on our interactions with that person.

== Research in Psychology ==

[[Category:Science]]

Psychology

2007-04-10T20:08:51Z

Etaroced:

'''Psychology''' is the scientific study and evaluation of [[mind]] and [[behavior]]. Psychological research focuses on many sub-topics including: [[personality]], behavior, [[addiction]], [[learning]], [[value systems]], and [[relationships]]. Psychology can also refer to the application of that knowledge to various spheres of human activity, including correcting problems that affect individuals' daily lives and the treatment of mental health issues.

The word psychology comes from the ancient Greek ψυχή psyche ("soul," "mind") and -λογία -ology ("study").

== History ==

== Fields of Psychology ==

*'''Biological psychology''' is the study of the biological underpinnings of behavior, mental states (e.g., emotion), and mental health.

*'''Clinical psychology'''

*'''Cognitive psychology''' is the branch of psychology that explores how cognitive processes influence behavior. Research in this field focuses on topics such as learning, perception, memory, attention, and information processing.

*'''Community psychology'''

*'''Developmental psychology''' is the study of how mental processes and behavior change with aging.

*'''Evolutionary psychology''' attempts to define psychology and behavior as products of an evolutionary history. They strive to be the [[functional morphology | functional morphologist]] of psychology.

*'''Health psychology/behavioral medicine''' focuses on the impact of psychological factors on behaviors that are relevant to physical health. Researchers in this field study topics such as substance abuse, obesity, and exercise.

*'''Industrial/organizational psychology'''

*'''Neuropsychology'''

*'''School psychology''' focuses on helping students succeed academically.

*'''Social psychology''' is the study of social behavior or interpersonal interactions. Social psychologists study issues such as the way in which attitudes towards other people are formed, or the effect that our perceptions of another person's behavior have on our interactions with that person.

== Research in Psychology ==

[[Category:Science]]

Direct fitness

2007-04-06T17:41:20Z

Etaroced: Redirecting to Direct Fitness

#REDIRECT [[Direct Fitness]]

Indirect Fitness

2007-04-06T17:40:24Z

Etaroced: Redirecting to Inclusive fitness

#REDIRECT [[Inclusive fitness]]

Inclusive fitness

2007-04-06T17:39:59Z

Etaroced: New page: '''Inclusive fitness''' is a term in evolution that describes the total proportion of genes that an individual organism contributes to the next generation. Fitnes...

'''Inclusive fitness''' is a term in [[Theory of evolution | evolution]] that describes the total proportion of genes that an individual organism contributes to the next generation. Fitness is usually divided into two categories [[Direct fitness]] or Darwinian fitness and indirect fitness. For many years after [[Charles Darwin]] published his theory most people focused on direct fitness, which was just a measurement of direct descendants. However, in 1964 [[W.D. Hamilton]] published a book that outlined how indirect fitness could be just as important if not more important than direct fitness. Hamilton realized that an organism's genetic relatives could also contribute that organism's genes into the next generation so any aid given to ones relatives to aid in their reproduction could increase fitness indirectly. The likelihood that aid given to a relative would translate into a fitness benefit is proportional to how many genes that relative shares with you. So offspring of a brother or sister is a larger fitness benefit then the offspring of a half-sibling or cousin. This led to the development of [[Hamilton's rule]] to mathematically describe the relationship that would allow [[nepotism]] to evolve. This is commonly written as '''c<rb''' with c correspond to the cost of an act, r the co-efficient of relatedness (the proportion of genes shared in common), and b is the benefit to the relative. So if the cost to an organism is less than the benefit to the relative time the co-efficient of relatedness it would be adaptive to aid ones relative.

This rule has been used in [[evolutionary biology]], [[behavioral ecology]], and [[evolutionary psychology]] to describe a wide range of behaviors. Most famous is [[Robert Triver]]'s [[parent-offspring conflict]] theory which attempts to explain the conflict between parents and their children using Hamilton's rule. Triver's pointed out that to a parent each of one's offspring is related by 0.5 so all are viewed equally so the parent wants benefits to be distributed to each offspring equally. However, each individual offspring views them selves (r=1) as twice as valuable as its siblings (r=0.5) so it wants twice the investment as its siblings get. This sets the stage for conflict to emerge.

==References==

*Campbell, N., Reece, J., et al. 2002. Biology. 6th ed. San Francisco, California. pp. 1145-1148.

*Hamilton, W. D. 1964 The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour I and II, J. Theor. Biol. v7, pp 1-16, and 17-52

*Hamilton, W. D. 1975, Innate Social Aptitudes of Man: an Approach from Evolutionary Genetics, in Robin Fox (ed.), Biosocial Anthropology, Malaby Press, London, 133-153 (IF including altruism to fellow altruists among strangers discussed herein)

* Buss, David, ed. (2005) The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. ISBN 0-471-26403-2.

* Buss, D.M. (2004). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Darwinian Fitness

2007-04-06T17:27:41Z

Etaroced: Redirecting to Direct Fitness

#REDIRECT [[Direct Fitness]]

Darwinian Fitness

2007-04-06T17:27:25Z

Etaroced: Redirecting to Direct fitness

#REDIRECT [[Direct fitness]]

Direct Fitness

2007-04-06T17:26:54Z

Etaroced:

'''Direct Fitness''' or '''Darwinian Fitness''' is a central tenant of the [[Theory of evolution]]. It is the measurement of an individual [[organisms]] ability to reproduce. Direct fitness is measured as the proportion of genes a given individual contributes to the next generation due to its direct reproductive efforts. This can be contrasted with [[inclusive fitness]] which also includes the indirect fitness measure of genes contributed to the next generation based on aid given to relatives that are not direct descendants.

==References==

Campbell, N., Reece, J., et al. 2002. Biology. 6th ed. San Francisco, California. pp. 1145-1148.

Direct Fitness

2007-04-06T17:26:38Z

Etaroced: New page: '''Direct Fitness'' or '''Darwinian Fitness''' is a central tenant of the Theory of evolution. It is the measurement of an individual organisms ability to reproduce. Direct fitness...

'''Direct Fitness'' or '''Darwinian Fitness''' is a central tenant of the [[Theory of evolution]]. It is the measurement of an individual [[organisms]] ability to reproduce. Direct fitness is measured as the proportion of genes a given individual contributes to the next generation due to its direct reproductive efforts. This can be contrasted with [[inclusive fitness]] which also includes the indirect fitness measure of genes contributed to the next generation based on aid given to relatives that are not direct descendants.

==References==

Campbell, N., Reece, J., et al. 2002. Biology. 6th ed. San Francisco, California. pp. 1145-1148.

Environment of evolutionary adaptedness

2007-04-06T17:18:46Z

Etaroced:

The '''environment of evolutionary adaptedness''' (EEA) refers to the environment in which a given [[adaption]] is said to have [[Theory of evolution | evolved]]. The term was coined by John Bowlby as part of his attachment theory. The EEA has become an important concept in [[evolutionary psychology]] but is also important to any field in biology that seeks to find [[ultimate cause]]s. The important thing to remember is that the EEA is not the current environment, it is usually geographically different and chronologically in the past. For example it is often argued that people prefer sweet or fatty food because in the EEA it would have been adaptive, the fact that in the modern world it has become maladaptive does not change the desire in a human brain formed in the EEA.

==References==

* Buss, David, ed. (2005) The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. ISBN 0-471-26403-2.

* Buss, D.M. (2004). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Proximate cause

2007-04-06T17:17:03Z

Etaroced: Redirecting to Tinbergen's four questions

#redirect [[Tinbergen's four questions]]

Ultimate cause

2007-04-06T17:16:38Z

Etaroced: Redirecting to Tinbergen's four questions

#redirect [[Tinbergen's four questions]]

Environment of evolutionary adaptedness

2007-04-06T17:16:08Z

Etaroced: New page: The '''environment of evolutionary adaptedness''' (EEA) refers to the environment in which a given adaption is said to have evolved. The term was coined by Jo...

The '''environment of evolutionary adaptedness''' (EEA) refers to the environment in which a given [[adaption]] is said to have [[Theory of evolution | evolved]]. The term was coined by John Bowlby as part of his attachment theory. The EEA has become an important concept in [[evolutionary psychology]] but is also important to an field in biology that seeks to find [[ultimate cause]]s. The important thing to remember is that the EEA is not the current environment, it is usually geographically different and chronologically in the past. For example it is often argued that people prefer sweet or fatty food because in the EEA it would have been adaptive, the fact that in the modern world it has become maladaptive does not change the desire in a human brain formed in the EEA.

==References==

* Buss, David, ed. (2005) The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. ISBN 0-471-26403-2.

* Buss, D.M. (2004). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Tinbergen's four questions

2007-04-06T17:06:16Z

Etaroced:

'''Tinbergen's four questions''' are a general schemea used by biologist to classify the different causes of animal behavior and morphology. They were spelled out in the 1960s by Nikolaas Tinbergen who says he was inspired by [[Aristotle's four types of causes]]. The four causes that Tinbergen delineated have received wide usage to frame papers and concepts in the fields of [[ethology]], [[behavioral ecology]], [[sociobiology]], and [[evolutionary psychology]].

==The four causes==

The four causes can be divided into two major categories. The first two are [[deep time]] causes that relate to the [[Theory of evolution | evolutionary]] explanations for behavior. The second two are based on causes that occur in the life time of the [[organism]].

===Deep time or Ultimate causes===

''Evolutionary, and Functional Causes:''

The ultimate or functional cause is [[selection]]. These are explanations that attempt to describe the causes of behavior or morphology based on function or selective advantage. In science these are are called [[adaptations]].

''Phylogeny':'

These are deep time causes that are anything other than selection and adaptation. This can take the form of [[drift]], [[phylogenetic constraint]], or [[homology]]. Essentially any evolutionary expiation that is not linked to a selective advantage.

===Proximate explanations===

''Development (ontogeny):''

These are causes that are related to the development of the organism. This can include the unfolding of [[hox genes]] or [[learning]] or anything in between. These causes address only those elements of development that work with in the life time of the organism. For example, explaining the order of development by the alignment of hox genes is a proximate developmental causative explanation. But the explanation for the reason why the hox genes are aligned in a particular fashion would be an ultimate causative explanation.
See developmental biology and developmental psychology.

''Other proximate mechanisms:''

These include such things as hormones, brain areas, and nutrition. These are anything working with in the lifetime of the organism that is not related to development.

==Separate but Equal==

One of Tinbergen's major points is that all of these explanations are complementary to each other. Two researchers addressing two different areas of causation will explain the same behavior in a different way but these are not conflicting explanations. The human [[eye]] can be explained at all four levels: the functional argument would look at the benefits of having eyes such as finding food or avoiding predators, a phylogenetic argument might explain the structure of the eye such as the [[blind spot]] as a factor of constraint and homology, the developmental argument might describe the stage at which the eye develops and the genes involved in it development, while other proxmiate explanations might examine how different receptors encode different color of light. All of these explanations are separate but equal in Tinbergen's paradigm.

==References==
Alcock, John (2001) Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach, Sinauer, 7th edition. ISBN 0-87893-011-6.

Buss, David M., Martie G. Haselton, Todd K. Shackelford, et al. (1998) “Adaptations, Exaptations, and Spandrels,” American Psychologist, 53:533-548. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/spandrels.html

Buss, David M. (2004) Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, Pearson Education, 2nd edition. ISBN 0-205-37071-3.

Cartwright, John (2000) Evolution and Human Behavior, MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-53170-4.

Tinbergen's four questions

2007-04-06T17:05:20Z

Etaroced: New page: '''Tinbergen's four questions''' are a general schemes used by biologist to classify the different causes of animal behavior and morphology. They were spelled out in the 1960s by Nikolaas ...

'''Tinbergen's four questions''' are a general schemes used by biologist to classify the different causes of animal behavior and morphology. They were spelled out in the 1960s by Nikolaas Tinbergen who says he was inspired by [[Aristotle's four types of causes]]. The four causes that Tinbergen delineated have receive wide usages to frame papers and concepts in the fields of [[ethology]], [[behavioral ecology]], [[sociobiology]], and [[evolutionary psychology]].

==The four causes==

The four causes can be divided into two major categories. The first two are [[deep time]] causes that relate to the [[Theory of evolution | evolutionary]] explanations for behavior. The second two are based on causes that occur in the life time of the [[organism]].

===Deep time or Ultimate causes===

''Evolutionary, and Functional Causes:''

The ultimate or functional cause is [[selection]]. These are explanations that attempt to describe the causes of behavior or morphology based on function or selective advantage. In science these are are called [[adaptations]].

''Phylogeny':'

These are deep time causes that are anything other than selection and adaptation. This can take the form of [[drift]], [[phylogenetic constraint]], or [[homology]]. Essentially any evolutionary expiation that is not linked to a selective advantage.

===Proximate explanations===

''Development (ontogeny):''

These are causes that are related to the development of the organism. This can include the unfolding of [[hox genes]] or [[learning]] or anything in between. These causes address only those elements of development that work with in the life time of the organism. For example, explaining the order of development by the alignment of hox genes is a proximate developmental causative explanation. But the explanation for the reason why the hox genes are aligned in a particular fashion would be an ultimate causative explanation.
See developmental biology and developmental psychology.

''Other proximate mechanisms:''

These include such things as hormones, brain areas, and nutrition. These are anything working with in the lifetime of the organism that is not related to development.

==Separate but Equal==

One of Tinbergen's major points is that all of these explanations are complementary to each other. Two researchers addressing two different areas of causation will explain the same behavior in a different way but these are not conflicting explanations. The human [[eye]] can be explained at all four levels: the functional argument would look at the benefits of having eyes such as finding food or avoiding predators, a phylogenetic argument might explain the structure of the eye such as the [[blind spot]] as a factor of constraint and homology, the developmental argument might describe the stage at which the eye develops and the genes involved in it development, while other proxmiate explanations might examine how different receptors encode different color of light. All of these explanations are separate but equal in Tinbergen's paradigm.

==References==
Alcock, John (2001) Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach, Sinauer, 7th edition. ISBN 0-87893-011-6.

Buss, David M., Martie G. Haselton, Todd K. Shackelford, et al. (1998) “Adaptations, Exaptations, and Spandrels,” American Psychologist, 53:533-548. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/spandrels.html

Buss, David M. (2004) Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, Pearson Education, 2nd edition. ISBN 0-205-37071-3.

Cartwright, John (2000) Evolution and Human Behavior, MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-53170-4.

Talk:Liberal quotient

2007-04-05T18:23:42Z

Etaroced:

What a fabulous Encyclopedia entry, with entries like this I don't see [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=conservapedia.com&site1=&site2=&site3=&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=540&range=1m&size=Medium&url=conservapedia.com why no one is using this site?]

Fantastic!!
This means we now have a wonderful new method of assessing Conservative Bias, and for the first time it is measurable. To calculate the Conservative Quotient (CQ), all one has to do is to know the Liberal Quotient (LQ), then apply the formula: CQ = 1 - LQ.

A rating above zero presumably means that there is Conservative Bias?

Shurely Shome mishtake?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== 80%? ==
A source for that might do nicely. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 14:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal quotient of Conservapedia==

Not counting the vandals, I'm genuinely curious what our liberal quotient is. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Most of the liberals here have been pretty disenfranchised, a few still prawl around the talk pages but they are not really "part of the group" so I don't think its very high. There is what, about 40 active users, maybe a dozen or so are liberals, but I think they have been pretty effectively shut down by bans, warnings, and condescending and insulting sysops. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Pseudogene

2007-04-05T17:44:30Z

Etaroced:

I deleted this entry because: no sourcing and "facts" are asserted but not shown. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I STRONGLY object to this deletion. This is totally uncalled for. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 00:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Please bring the article back and I will go through and individually source each claim. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 00:05, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:That may not be possible. And please do not assert "facts" that are not facts. If I am not mistaken you broke two conservapedia rules in your unsourced article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

::These are common knowledge ideas here, but REQUEST citations don't just delete, that is seriously abusive. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 00:08, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Certainly looks well sourced now. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 02:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Yea, and I was blocked for it too. I guess there were too many sourced, inconvenient facts. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 12:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Really?! My word. I do however have a question. You state, "Creationist scientists assert that pseudogene analysis used to argue to validity of the theory of evolution is invalid." I'm afraid that I can't quite grasp this one. I tried to think of some way to make it clearer, but I'm afraid that I can't understand it. Can you clarify?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I have NO idea, that little tid bit was added by one of our more...........peculiar.........sysops. I think its a knee jerk response to inconvenient facts. Its a line that he pastes into articles and then link spams the reference. My main hypothesis is that he is not intelligent enough to write a section that actually addresses the claim, or can not allow himself to actually READ it and THINK about it because it might shake his faith. So he just does a search on the term on AIG and pastes that in the article. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Suffolk punch

2007-04-05T17:22:35Z

Etaroced: New page: When there is one new article an hour its tough to slip by anything like this. ~~~~

When there is one new article an hour its tough to slip by anything like this. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Pseudogene

2007-04-05T16:34:55Z

Etaroced: previous reorganization didn'

'''Pseudogenes''' are genes present in an organism's [[genome]] that have lost the ability to code for proteins due to mutation. <ref name=petrov>Petrov, D.A, Hartl, D.L. (2000). Pseudogene evolution and natural selection for a compact genome. The American Genetic Association 91:221-227. [http://www.stanford.edu/group/petrov/research/16.pdf]</ref> They were first identified and dubbed in the late 1970s when researchers began finding non-coding regions in some organisms that were similar to actual coding genes in other organisms. <ref name=sciam>Gerstein, M, Zheng, D. (2006). The real life of pseudogenes. Scientific American 95:48-55. [http://papers.gersteinlab.org/e-print/sciam2/preprint.pdf]</ref> So far an estimated 19,000 pseudogenes have been identified in the human genome, this is almost equal to the total number of coding genes (21,000). <ref name=sciam /> Humans have many pseudogenes including [[L-gulonolactone oxidase]] which is used to synthesize vitamin c. Research reports that this gene was inactivated in the common ancestor of all [[simians]]. <ref>http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/kmilton/kmilton.html</ref>

== Creationist Perspective ==
Creationist scientists assert that pseudogene analysis used to argue to validity of the [[theory of evolution]] is invalid. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pseudogenes.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pseudogenes_genomes.asp</ref>

==Finding pseudogenes and the Evolutionary Perspective==
Pseudogenes have been identified in a wide range of organisms from bacteria to mice to humans, the total number of pseudogenes in a given genome is not predictable but specific pseudogenes are often compared across species to assert complex evolutionary relationships <ref name=sciam />

Pseudogenes are often difficult to parse from the large amount of non-coding base pairs in the genome. Convention requires two elements to be present to label a sequence a pseudogene. The first is [[homology]] which is the requirement that a sequence be demonstrated to descend from a functional copy of the gene and the second is non-functionality which is the requirement that the gene not code for a protein in the organism in question. <ref name=sciam />

Since all pseudogenes are asserted to be descended from a functioning gene the first step is to find the parent gene that it descended from. This is done by using computer programs to compare sequences of DNA across species. <ref name=sciam /> This is a large computational problem but by keeping in mind the phylogenetic relationships between species the search time can be decreased by looking at species that share a more recent common ancestor.<ref name=mito>Bensasson, D., Zhang, D., Hartl, D., Hewitt, G. (2001). Mitochondrial pseudogense: evolution's misplaced witness. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 314-321. [http://www.ioz.ac.cn/department/agripest/group/zhangdx/ZDX-s-pdf%5CTREE2001-Updated_numt.PDF]</ref> Once a functioning copy of a gene is detected its sequence is compared to the pseudogene. A high correlation in base pairs is used to assign homology. Non-functionality can be demonstrated by attempting to transcribe the sequence in-vitro. <ref name=sciam />

==Pseudogenes and neutral selection theory==

Because pseudogenes do not code for a function many scientists have hypothesized that the accumulation of mutations would not be constrained by selection pressures.<ref name=petrov /> This is known as neutral selection, and pseudogenes have been studied extensively to test various theories of neutral selection. <ref name=bustamante>Bustamante, C, Neilsen R, Hartl, D. (2002). A maximum likelihood method for analyzing pseudogene evolution: implications for silent site evolution in humans and rodents. 19:110-117. [http://www.mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/110]</ref> It has been determined that mutations fixate in pseudogene regions at about 30 percent higher than in coding regions of DNA. <ref name=bustamante /> Some theorist have argued that there maybe some selection pressure on pseudogenes (such as on genome size in general) so conclusions should be tempered.<ref name=petrov /> Others have determined that base pair mutations are not completely random, favoring accumulation of [[guanin]] and [[cytosine]]. <ref name=bustamante /> Despite these findings research on pseudogenes still continues to be a productive avenue for exploring mutation and selection.

==See also==
[[Endogenous retrovirus]]

[[L-gulonolactone oxidase]]

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Pseudogene

2007-04-05T16:12:24Z

Etaroced:

Pseudogene

2007-04-05T04:16:17Z

Etaroced: sentence only makes sense in this contex

'''Pseudogenes''' are genes present in an organism's [[genome]] that have lost the ability to code for proteins due to mutation. <ref name=petrov>Petrov, D.A, Hartl, D.L. (2000). Pseudogene evolution and natural selection for a compact genome. The American Genetic Association 91:221-227. [http://www.stanford.edu/group/petrov/research/16.pdf]</ref> They were first identified and dubbed in the late 1970s when researchers began finding non-coding regions in some organisms that were similar to actual coding genes in other organisms. <ref name=sciam>Gerstein, M, Zheng, D. (2006). The real life of pseudogenes. Scientific American 95:48-55. [http://papers.gersteinlab.org/e-print/sciam2/preprint.pdf]</ref> So far an estimated 19,000 pseudogenes have been identified in the human genome, this is almost equal to the total number of coding genes (21,000). <ref name=sciam /> Humans have many pseudogenes including [[L-gulonolactone oxidase]] which is used to synthesize vitamin c. Research reports that this gene was inactivated in the common ancestor of all [[simians]]. <ref>http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/kmilton/kmilton.html</ref>

==Finding pseudogenes==

Pseudogenes are often difficult to parse from the large amount of non-coding base pairs in the genome. Convention requires two elements to be present to label a sequence a pseudogene. The first is [[homology]] which is the requirement that a sequence be demonstrated to descend from a functional copy of the gene and the second is non-functionality which is the requirement that the gene not code for a protein in the organism in question. <ref name=sciam />

==Pseudogenes and neutral selection theory==

Because pseudogenes do not code for a function many scientists have hypothesized that the accumulation of mutations would not be constrained by selection pressures.<ref name=petrov /> This is known as neutral selection, and pseudogenes have been studied extensively to test various theories of neutral selection. <ref name=bustamante>Bustamante, C, Neilsen R, Hartl, D. (2002). A maximum likelihood method for analyzing pseudogene evolution: implications for silent site evolution in humans and rodents. 19:110-117. [http://www.mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/110]</ref> It has been determined that mutations fixate in pseudogene regions at about 30 percent higher than in coding regions of DNA. <ref name=bustamante /> Some theorist have argued that there maybe some selection pressure on pseudogenes (such as on genome size in general) so conclusions should be tempered.<ref name=petrov /> Others have determined that base pair mutations are not completely random, favoring accumulation of [[guanin]] and [[cytosine]]. <ref name=bustamante /> Despite these findings research on pseudogenes still continues to be a productive avenue for exploring mutation and selection.

== Creationist Perspective ==
Creationist scientists assert that pseudogene analysis used to argue to validity of the [[theory of evolution]] is invalid. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pseudogenes.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pseudogenes_genomes.asp</ref>

== Evolutionary Perspective ==
Pseudogenes have been identified in a wide range of organisms from bacteria to mice to humans, the total number of pseudogenes in a given genome is not predictable but specific pseudogenes are often compared across species to assert complex evolutionary relationships <ref name=sciam />

Since all pseudogenes are asserted to be descended from a functioning gene the first step is to find the parent gene that it descended from. This is done by using computer programs to compare sequences of DNA across species. <ref name=sciam /> This is a large computational problem but by keeping in mind the phylogenetic relationships between species the search time can be decreased by looking at species that share a more recent common ancestor.<ref name=mito>Bensasson, D., Zhang, D., Hartl, D., Hewitt, G. (2001). Mitochondrial pseudogense: evolution's misplaced witness. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 314-321. [http://www.ioz.ac.cn/department/agripest/group/zhangdx/ZDX-s-pdf%5CTREE2001-Updated_numt.PDF]</ref> Once a functioning copy of a gene is detected its sequence is compared to the pseudogene. A high correlation in base pairs is used to assign homology. Non-functionality can be demonstrated by attempting to transcribe the sequence in-vitro. <ref name=sciam />

==See also==
[[Endogenous retrovirus]]

[[L-gulonolactone oxidase]]

==References==
<references/>

Pseudogene

2007-04-05T03:07:52Z

Etaroced:

'''Pseudogenes''' are genes present in an organism's [[genome]] that have lost the ability to code for proteins due to mutation. <ref name=petrov>Petrov, D.A, Hartl, D.L. (2000). Pseudogene evolution and natural selection for a compact genome. The American Genetic Association 91:221-227. [http://www.stanford.edu/group/petrov/research/16.pdf]</ref> They were first identified and dubbed in the late 1970s when researchers began finding non-coding regions in some organisms that were similar to actual coding genes in other organisms. <ref name=sciam>Gerstein, M, Zheng, D. (2006). The real life of pseudogenes. Scientific American 95:48-55. [http://papers.gersteinlab.org/e-print/sciam2/preprint.pdf]</ref> So far an estimated 19,000 pseudogenes have been identified in the human genome, this is almost equal to the total number of coding genes (21,000). <ref name=sciam /> Humans have many pseudogenes including [[L-gulonolactone oxidase]] which is used to synthesize vitamin c. Research reports that this gene was inactivated in the common ancestor of all [[simians]]. <ref>http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/kmilton/kmilton.html</ref>

==Finding pseudogenes==

Pseudogenes are often difficult to parse from the large amount of non-coding base pairs in the genome. Convention requires two elements to be present to label a sequence a pseudogene. The first is [[homology]] which is the requirement that a sequence be demonstrated to descend from a functional copy of the gene and the second is non-functionality which is the requirement that the gene not code for a protein in the organism in question. <ref name=sciam />

Since all pseudogenes are descended from a functioning gene the first step is to find the parent gene that it descended from. This is done by using computer programs to compare sequences of DNA across species. <ref name=sciam /> This is a large computational problem but by keeping in mind the phylogenetic relationships between species the search time can be decreased by looking at species that share a more recent common ancestor.<ref name=mito>Bensasson, D., Zhang, D., Hartl, D., Hewitt, G. (2001). Mitochondrial pseudogense: evolution's misplaced witness. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 314-321. [http://www.ioz.ac.cn/department/agripest/group/zhangdx/ZDX-s-pdf%5CTREE2001-Updated_numt.PDF]</ref> Once a functioning copy of a gene is detected its sequence is compared to the pseudogene. A high correlation in base pairs is used to assign homology. Non-functionality can be demonstrated by attempting to transcribe the sequence in-vitro. <ref name=sciam />

==Pseudogenes and neutral selection theory==

Because pseudogenes do not code for a function many scientist have hypothesized that the accumulation of mutations would not be constrained by selection pressures.<ref name=petrov /> This is known as neutral selection, and pseudogenes have been studied extensively to test various theories of neutral selection. <ref name=bustamante>Bustamante, C, Neilsen R, Hartl, D. (2002). A maximum likelihood method for analyzing pseudogene evolution: implications for silent site evolution in humans and rodents. 19:110-117. [http://www.mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/110]</ref> It has been determined that mutations fixate in pseudogene regions at about 30 percent higher than in coding regions of DNA. <ref name=bustamante /> Some theorist have argued that there maybe some selection pressure on pseudogenes (such as on genome size in general) so conclusions should be tempered.<ref name=petrov /> Others have determined that base pair mutations are not completely random, favoring accumulation of [[guanin]] and [[cytosine]]. <ref name=bustamante /> Despite these findings research on pseudogenes still continues to be a productive avenue for exploring mutation and selection.

== Creationist Perspective ==
Creationist scientists assert that pseudogene analysis used to argue to validity of the [[theory of evolution]] is invalid. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pseudogenes.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pseudogenes_genomes.asp</ref>

== Evolutionary Perspective ==
Pseudogenes have been identified in a wide range of organisms from bacteria to mice to humans, the total number of pseudogenes in a given genome is not predictable but specific pseudogenes are often compared across species to assert complex evolutionary relationships <ref name=sciam />

==See also==
[[Endogenous retrovirus]]

[[L-gulonolactone oxidase]]

==References==
<references/>

User talk:Tweetsensi3456

2007-04-04T23:25:23Z

Etaroced:

Why is every one getting banned?

:That's how encyclopedias get created. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 19:24, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Because the SYSOPS at this site are all teenagers or socially repressed individuals exhilarated with the thrill of "power". [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 19:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Sillybear25

2007-04-04T23:05:50Z

Etaroced: New page: 900D LU(|< j00Z R 901|\|9 70 |\|33D 17

900D LU(|< j00Z R 901|\|9 70 |\|33D 17

Icons of Evolution

2007-04-04T22:51:06Z

Etaroced:

Icons of Evolution is a book by [[Jonathan Wells]]. In it, Mr. Wells describes certain myths often used to illustrate evolutionary theory, and explains why they are incorrect.

==See Also==

[[Pharyngula]]

User:Ed Poor

2007-04-04T18:02:17Z

Etaroced:

[[Category:Wikipedians on Conservapedia|Ed Poor]]
Archives: [[/archive 01|01]]

==Quick links==
*[[Special:Imagelist]] - table of recently uploaded images
*[[Special:Ipblocklist]] - Use this to unblock a user.
*[[Special:Shortpages]]
*[[Conservapedia:Commonly misspelled words]]
*[[/to do list]] - anyone is free to edit this: add, delete, or prioritize as you see fit

==About me==

Hi, my name is Ed Poor and I'm a former developer, admin & bureaucrat from Wikipedia.

I know quite a bit about the internal workings of Wikipedia: the database structure, formatting, templates, dispute procedures, content and style guidelines; and, oh, yes, all the politics and gossip of the first few years.

Dpbsmith asked me to come over, so here I am. I'm finding the environment much more congenial.

My chief aim here is
to facilitate the highest standards of encyclopedia development.

I was one of the earliest members of the Wikipedia project (UserID #188). I helped institute the following practices or software features there:
[[Image:Ed11.jpg|left|thumb|Ed poor in Newark]]
*Marking edits as 'patrolled' (co-conceived with Maveric who in one marathon period personally checked '''every''' Wikipedia edit for vandalism!)
*Ability of blocked users to edit their own user talk page
*Community ban - i.e., increased authority for sysops to block a disruptive user
*The practice of bureaucrats "running" for office (I was the first one elected, when as a developer I could simply have granted myself the rights)

Pages I'm proud of there:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_personal_remarks Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_enemy Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]
*{{wp|Wikipedia:Harmonious_editing_club}}

==Favorite contributors==
This is a partial list. Don't get all bent out of shape because I haven't placed your name here (yet). :-) And it's not in any particular order.
*{{user|TK}} - straight to the point
*{{user|MountainDew}} - refreshing, like a can of soda!
*{{user|RSchlafly}} - forthright
*{{user|Aschlafly}} - erudite
*{{user|Dpbsmith}} - out of sight!
*{{user|Hojimachong}} - all right!
*{{user|Sid 3050}} - a big help
*{{user|Jaques}} - a lot of interesting stuff

==A new role==

To my surprise and pleasure, I was voted in as a sysop here - reportedly it was unanimous. Thank you for your support.

I believe that users who are here to contribute should get a helping hand, and those who cannot or will not make useful contributions should be shown to the door. But since, "His mercy is forever sure", I don't like applying infinite bans; it's always possible for a person to make up his mind to take a new direction. (I'm currently chewing some tough pills supplied by [[User:TK]], so watch out.)

I've unprotected a handful of pages and am watching them. I have hopes that eventually all content pages can be freely edited, once they reach a mature and stable state.

==Welcome==

Welcome, I'm Dan. I see that you have made many great article improvements in your week here. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks, Dan. I try. And I've learned a lot from watching you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Ideas I'm looking at==
*[[/aspects of evolution]] - a draft about the terminological confusion
*Conservapedia as a [[think tank]]
*Flaws in [[Wikipedia]]
*Myk's gloomy prediction:[[User:Myk#Why conservapedia is doomed to fail|conservapedia is doomed to fail]]

*[[Objectivity]]
*[[Science]] and [[scientist]]s
**How much trust do they deserve?
*[[Chilling effect]]
**''There is little present on this site that is in any way objective or scientific. The very fear that anything could get edited out for ideologic reasons puts a chill on what is published''

*Clarity: An encyclopedia should not use made-up, unclear terms. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=81788&oldid=81737]

*[[origins debate]] = Creationism vs. "science" (i.e., materialism)

*[[/Morality]]

*Popularity
**of certain articles
**of the project as a whole
**Are they just laughing at us out there? (See 'liberal bias' below)

*Standards of conduct:
*#for sysops
*#*Not arbitrarily banning users
*#for ordinary users

*[[Conservapedia:Reliability|Reliability]]

*Bias
**[[Liberal bias]]
**[[Conservative bias]]

*Collaboration
**Agreeing to disagree
**NPOV
**Compromise

*Registration
*:Registration is closed late at night and early morning (Eastern Time). It's open during the day and early evening. Also, you can email the webmaster or [[User:Aschlafly]] (he's at aol) for manual accounts.

*Leadership
**Should there be a "lead sysop"?
***I'd be glad to follow [[User:TK|TerryK]]'s lead
**[[/Minion]]s [http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/m/m0316600.html]

*[[History of science]]

*Basis for inclusion of material
**Must be well-cited
**Are alternative ideas being censored?

*[[Politicized Science]] as related to:
**[[Eugenics]]
**[[Holocaust]]

*Smear terms [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=75010&oldid=74978]

==I hope this is the right way to respond to you ==
Ed, I was a Wiki-newbie when I got the boot, so I'm still fairly new to this whole process. I noticed your words of encouragement regarding Intelligent Design and I wanted to drop a quick reply. I hope I'm not vandalizing your page and I hope this is the proper way to reply to someone. I'm not an Intelligent Design expert. I am an editor and a nationally published writer. My comments at the Wikipedia ID page were primarily to point out logical/grammatical/fairness issues. I'm happy to help edit and I think the creation of this site is important for our children. If you need a minion to do some editing let me know. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Many are the volunteers clamoring to become one of my teeming minions. ;-)

==Irc==
I be there.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

== Science Classroom ==
I have a proposal to open a science classroom. The idea is to have '''experts''' in science (and I mean standard, practical science) answer basic science questions. It would not be a place for ideologues to leave their views or smear others. It would not be a place for non-mainstream science, e.g. creationism...as it is still not considered mainstream, it needs its own classroom. For example, someone could ask how scienice explains "x", and someone could give the ''standard'' answer. If anyone is interested in collaborating, especially ''wikigeeks'' who would have an idea how to set it up, let me know.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 12:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I trust you...--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== It's Not Fear ==
Don't say you fear it but something like this:
Please include this information; or,
According to (blank) McCarthy did (this action) which had (that result).
We're not afraid of ideas here. It's not like some children's school library that censors Uncle Tom's Cabin or Huckleberry Finn because it might have a scary or offense passage. But like a library, there's a certain standard of decorum. --Ed Poor 16:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

If fear is not a factor, it's certainly odd that I get so very few answers to simple and direct questions. It's also odd that so much of what I posted to the McCarthy article, all of which was cited and factual, was removed. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Without having looked at the edits... and without knowing your opinions of McCarthy... let me say that it ''is'' perfectly possible for things to be "cited and factual," yet tendentious. A good example would be [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Brown_University&oldid=66556 the initial version of the article on Brown University]. Take a look at it: it is completely factual and almost completely cited (and a citation for the "slavery" section is easily found). I say this because whenever someone says "everything I added was cited and factual," it always raised a bit of a red flag in ''my'' mind. Now let me go look at those edits... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT) OK, I see your point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

It's nice to know that somebody here does. Too bad it won't change anything. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Re: Tone and content of comments==
Thanks for the suggestion. I wasn't attacking him, I was genuinely amused by the fact that that was not immediately reverted, and especially with an edit summary like it was given. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Joy, fun and expressions of amusement are always welcome. See also the emerging [[Conservapedia:Civility]] discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:34, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Uploading==
:I just resize image to less than 150kb, then try use random combination of letters as filenames, such as 56335.jpg or uuy587.jpg, usully works in less than 4 tries. Actully, this problem should be fixed on the server side, instead of requiring users to use stupid hacks. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 14:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==
Sorry Ed, whichever page that was on I forgot to add it to my watchlist. Lost track of it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Pseudogene

2007-04-04T05:17:10Z

Etaroced: Fully sourced version

'''Pseudogenes''' are genes present in an organism's [[genome]] that have lost the ability to code for proteins due to mutation. <ref name=petrov>Petrov, D.A, Hartl, D.L. (2000). Pseudogene evolution and natural selection for a compact genome. The American Genetic Association 91:221-227. [http://www.stanford.edu/group/petrov/research/16.pdf]</ref> They were first identified and dubbed in the late 1970s when researchers began finding non-coding regions in some organisms that were similar to actual coding genes in other organisms. <ref name=sciam>Gerstein, M, Zheng, D. (2006). The real life of pseudogenes. Scientific American 95:48-55. [http://papers.gersteinlab.org/e-print/sciam2/preprint.pdf]</ref> So far an estimated 19,000 pseudogenes have been identified in the human genome, this is almost equal to the total number of coding genes (21,000). <ref name=sciam /> Pseudogenes have been identified in a wide range of organisms from bacteria to mice to humans, the total number of pseudogenes in a given genome is not predictable but specific pseudogenes are often compared across species to elucidate complex evolutionary relationships <ref name=sciam /> Humans have many pseudogenes including [[L-gulonolactone oxidase]] which is used to synthesize vitamin c. This gene was inactivated in the common ancestor of all [[simians]].

==Finding pseudogenes==

Pseudogenes are often difficult to parse from the large amount of non-coding base pairs in the genome. Convention requires two elements to be present to label a sequence a pseudogene. The first is [[homology]] which is the requirement that a sequence be demonstrated to descend from a functional copy of the gene and the second is non-functionality which is the requirement that the gene not code for a protein in the organism in question. <ref name=sciam />

Since all pseudogenes are descended from a functioning gene the first step is to find the parent gene that it descended from. This is done by using computer programs to compare sequences of DNA across species. <ref name=sciam /> This is a large computational problem but by keeping in mind the phylogenetic relationships between species the search time can be decreased by looking at species that share a more recent common ancestor.<ref name=mito>Bensasson, D., Zhang, D., Hartl, D., Hewitt, G. (2001). Mitochondrial pseudogense: evolution's misplaced witness. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 314-321. [http://www.ioz.ac.cn/department/agripest/group/zhangdx/ZDX-s-pdf%5CTREE2001-Updated_numt.PDF]</ref> Once a functioning copy of a gene is detected its sequence is compared to the pseudogene. A high correlation in base pairs is used to assign homology. Non-functionality can be demonstrated by attempting to transcribe the sequence in-vitro. <ref name=sciam />

==Pseudogenes and neutral selection theory==

Because pseudogenes do not code for a function many scientist have hypothesized that the accumulation of mutations would not be constrained by selection pressures.<ref name=petrov /> This is known as neutral selection, and pseudogenes have been studied extensively to test various theories of neutral selection. <ref name=bustamante>Bustamante, C, Neilsen R, Hartl, D. (2002). A maximum likelihood method for analyzing pseudogene evolution: implications for silent site evolution in humans and rodents. 19:110-117. [http://www.mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/110]</ref> It has been determined that mutations fixate in pseudogene regions at about 30 percent higher than in coding regions of DNA. <ref name=bustamante /> Some theorist have argued that there maybe some selection pressure on pseudogenes (such as on genome size in general) so conclusions should be tempered.<ref name=petrov /> Others have determined that base pair mutations are not completely random, favoring accumulation of [[guanin]] and [[cytosine]]. <ref name=bustamante /> Despite these findings research on pseudogenes still continues to be a productive avenue for exploring mutation and selection.

==See also==
[[Endogenous retrovirus]]

[[L-gulonolactone oxidase]]

==References==
<references/>

User:Mtur/Pseudogene

2007-04-04T05:16:24Z

Etaroced:

'''Pseudogenes''' are genes present in an organism's [[genome]] that have lost the ability to code for proteins due to mutation. <ref name=petrov>Petrov, D.A, Hartl, D.L. (2000). Pseudogene evolution and natural selection for a compact genome. The American Genetic Association 91:221-227. [http://www.stanford.edu/group/petrov/research/16.pdf]</ref> They were first identified and dubbed in the late 1970s when researchers began finding non-coding regions in some organisms that were similar to actual coding genes in other organisms. <ref name=sciam>Gerstein, M, Zheng, D. (2006). The real life of pseudogenes. Scientific American 95:48-55. [http://papers.gersteinlab.org/e-print/sciam2/preprint.pdf]</ref> So far an estimated 19,000 pseudogenes have been identified in the human genome, this is almost equal to the total number of coding genes (21,000). <ref name=sciam /> Pseudogenes have been identified in a wide range of organisms from bacteria to mice to humans, the total number of pseudogenes in a given genome is not predictable but specific pseudogenes are often compared across species to elucidate complex evolutionary relationships <ref name=sciam /> Humans have many pseudogenes including [[L-gulonolactone oxidase]] which is used to synthesize vitamin c. This gene was inactivated in the common ancestor of all [[simians]].

==Finding pseudogenes==

Pseudogenes are often difficult to parse from the large amount of non-coding base pairs in the genome. Convention requires two elements to be present to label a sequence a pseudogene. The first is [[homology]] which is the requirement that a sequence be demonstrated to descend from a functional copy of the gene and the second is non-functionality which is the requirement that the gene not code for a protein in the organism in question. <ref name=sciam />

Since all pseudogenes are descended from a functioning gene the first step is to find the parent gene that it descended from. This is done by using computer programs to compare sequences of DNA across species. <ref name=sciam /> This is a large computational problem but by keeping in mind the phylogenetic relationships between species the search time can be decreased by looking at species that share a more recent common ancestor.<ref name=mito>Bensasson, D., Zhang, D., Hartl, D., Hewitt, G. (2001). Mitochondrial pseudogense: evolution's misplaced witness. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 314-321. [http://www.ioz.ac.cn/department/agripest/group/zhangdx/ZDX-s-pdf%5CTREE2001-Updated_numt.PDF]</ref> Once a functioning copy of a gene is detected its sequence is compared to the pseudogene. A high correlation in base pairs is used to assign homology. Non-functionality can be demonstrated by attempting to transcribe the sequence in-vitro. <ref name=sciam />

==Pseudogenes and neutral selection theory==

Because pseudogenes do not code for a function many scientist have hypothesized that the accumulation of mutations would not be constrained by selection pressures.<ref name=petrov /> This is known as neutral selection, and pseudogenes have been studied extensively to test various theories of neutral selection. <ref name=bustamante>Bustamante, C, Neilsen R, Hartl, D. (2002). A maximum likelihood method for analyzing pseudogene evolution: implications for silent site evolution in humans and rodents. 19:110-117. [http://www.mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/110]</ref> It has been determined that mutations fixate in pseudogene regions at about 30 percent higher than in coding regions of DNA. <ref name=bustamante /> Some theorist have argued that there maybe some selection pressure on pseudogenes (such as on genome size in general) so conclusions should be tempered.<ref name=petrov /> Others have determined that base pair mutations are not completely random, favoring accumulation of [[guanin]] and [[cytosine]]. <ref name=bustamante /> Despite these findings research on pseudogenes still continues to be a productive avenue for exploring mutation and selection.

==See also==
[[Endogenous retrovirus]]

[[L-gulonolactone oxidase]]

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Pseudogene

2007-04-04T04:08:41Z

Etaroced:

Talk:Pseudogene

2007-04-04T04:05:47Z

Etaroced:

Talk:Pseudogene

2007-04-04T04:04:33Z

Etaroced: