Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-04-28T12:48:57Z

Hacker: /* Current Alerts */ Icewedge?

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
*ALERT:there are people on wikipedia planning to destroy you! There part of a "Cabal"? there members include the banned user icewedge. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hojimachong][[User:Tennis Sweatshirt|Tennis Sweatshirt]] 03:25, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:"Cabal" is something of an in-joke, we only plan to destroy Conservapedia when something really annoying happens :-). Oh, and there is no cabal! ---[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Oh, and Icewedge is not a member. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 08:48, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Terryeo]], Please block user if he causes problems at [[Dianetics]] or [[Scientology]]. See the relevant talk pages. I gave him a warning so far.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Rvm}} first edit was reverted by MountainDew (I mean DanH). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Vossy}} created a weird article which someone else immediately blanked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AmeriCan}} - disinformation [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=112288] -- [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::If I may, AmeriCan included some incorrect information along with some that was partially correct. I am not sure this abuse at all. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::Also, he has a continuing habit of cut-paste from other sites. See, for example his entry for [[Producerism]], copied in full from [http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pr/producerism.htm]. His contributions to [[Canada]] and [[hijab]], among others, are similar cut/paste jobs.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 18:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Vandalized Ronald Reagan, sock of Coolhandsluke --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Ilovebeingconservative (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:28, 17 April 2007) (Earliest: 04:19, 17 April 2007) [2]
*{{user|Sterile}} - 90/10 rule --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|ILikeCookies}} - not so much abusive edits as just plain fluff--doesn't quite seem appropriate. What does everybody think?
*#This edit to [[Dan Quayle]] wasn't too bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dan_Quayle&diff=prev&oldid=110148]
*The 6 random hex digit sock perp is back: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|GofG}} useless edits - warned
*{{user|Vyngarsson}} - 11 April 2007, trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Resurrection&diff=prev&oldid=99990] for a good example. Another example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=103140&oldid=101324]
*{{user|Phiattiangel}} - 11 April 2007, trolling.

===Dealt with===
*[[User:Tenna]] -- made a video game page full of obscenity and slander. Recommend permanent ban--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:14, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: Blocked. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:JeffersonDarcy]] -- linking to NAMBLA site. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=NAMBLA&diff=prev&oldid=129221] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**First, we know from Andy that linking to creepy sites is okay, even if you wouldn't put the material itself on CP (like the Silent Scream site). Second, JeffersonDarcy is a very good contributor, and has helped with some of my law articles.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**TOTALLY agree. You can't have it both ways, you know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Of course I linked to the NAMBLA site - the article was about NAMBLA. Who do you think I should link to there, NAACP? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 16:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
***In the future, maybe you should get permission to place links to questionable content. Naughty naughty [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
****that's a fair concern - but when someone posts the necessity for citations on the discussion page, I don't think that linking to the organization's official website would be a bad idea. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 16:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**The link could violate the Commandments, however this user's contributions do not show that this was anything more than a good faith attempt to improve the article. Therefore, '''No Block'''. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Truthandjustice}}
*#The reason given for Truthandjustice's block is: "'''Vandal'''") --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AdamNelson}} new user making sudden, unexplained big changes
*#---Ed, I saw it, about the same time Andy did. He's gone --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
*#09:49, 21 April 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AdamNelson (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Vandal & Per Andy
*{{user|AL}} off to a bad start --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:08, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*# 17:42, 19 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AL (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (made about a dozen edits in an hour, virtually all of which had to be reverted by others and myself because they removed factual info (e.g., SF entry) or inserted opinions as though they were facts (several instances))
*{{user|Nematocyte}} - warned not to annoy <s>TK</s> Terry.--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Ed, are you sure that TK has another problem with him? I am the one who has had problems with Nematocyte over my article [[Extraterrestrial life]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:I misunderstood I guess. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
* Dw1237200 sock of Ak1053287 (Who had a 3 day block by DanH starting on 12 April) got the second name on 13 April. Blocked, Infinite, both ID's. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|RightWolf2}} - threats, no useful edits --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*:: I vote for a block. I think he returned simply to threaten me, again. I've requested an explanation from him on his talk page. Who let him back? It's OK this time, but pretty soon we'll need some accountability for those who unblock someone who becomes a problem again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::Threatening, breaking the rules, blackmail... I'm no lawyer, but I don't think he has any legal grounds for his latest threat. I'll be blocking him. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::Isn't he already blocked? I got one of his socks earlier today. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::Didn't he admit to making overly polemic right-wing entries that he didn't really believe in himself awhile back to "test" the site? I remember getting into an argument with him about a month ago about his attempt to qualify Fred Phelps as a "leader in the pro-family movement". [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::You remember right, Dan. He's problematic. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*# 18:51, 21 March 2007 TimSvendsen (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked RightWolf2 (contribs)
*# 18:27, 21 March 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RightWolf2 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (Disruption, Threats. I did this to take the responsibility off Hoji.)
*{{user|Jeremiah4-22}} - for this edit http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biscuit&diff=97586&oldid=78309 (Blocked for 3 days) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Hillarycliton}} - blocked, all five contribs reverted --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Save Our Values}}
*#No contribs since 13 April --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AppliedFaith}} -trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=104416][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=104363], "sexual activity is always impure, even when conducted within marriage."
*#I gave him a question to answer at [[talk:Heterosexuality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for ONE YEAR --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:AnonymousLegion]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT) --Blocked by --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Mjc12]] - blocked by Conservative
*{{user|Polarbear}} - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by [[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
*TK blocked [[User:Cheney123|Cheney123]] (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
*[[User:Theelephant]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 18:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
*#18:09, 4 April 2007 Tsumetai blocked Theelephant (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (obscenity)
*{{user|Cooperstown4}} - 9 April 2007, TK blocked Cooperstown4 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandal/Nonsense/Insults)
*{{user|Zac4213}} - Was my block too hasty?
*{{user|Jaques}}- Many recent edits very similar to Wikipedia and use exact same pictures, See [[Whale]] and [[Plankton]].
: Jaques is a frequent contributor and many of his entries are good. The complaint would have to be more specific than this. There is nothing wrong about copying public domain pictures, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Mandolin2k}} - Joke entry (see "Jellystone")
*{{user|Godblessamerica}} - Copying from Wikipedia, prank edit here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wales&diff=prev&oldid=105299]
*{{user|Hamtandrus}} -self identified Holocaust denier. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial&diff=prev&oldid=105297]
::I think he's just being facetious.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::: He also says that he's 'done with this - place' [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::'''No block''' Holocaust denial isn't against the rules. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|SRogers}} - anti-Semitism; see piped link Judaism|bankers in Federal Reserve article, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Reserve&diff=90085&oldid=81656] -- 6 month block, (Conduct detrimental to Conservapedia --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Sureal}} - altered [[RMS Titanic]] to blame liberals for the loss of the ship, as well as previous bad edits for which he was warned. One week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Homeschool mom}} lays it on too thick - suspected parodist
: Warned 4/15. Awaiting response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:: No response. Another user said that her edits are copies from Wikipedia. Looks like we may have to block. Give her another day to respond?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Homeschool mom agreed to leave on her own. Case closed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-04-28T11:47:27Z

Hacker: He's a parody.

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
*ALERT:there are people on wikipedia planning to destroy you! There part of a "Cabal"? there members include the banned user icewedge. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hojimachong][[User:Tennis Sweatshirt|Tennis Sweatshirt]] 03:25, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:"Cabal" is something of an in-joke, we only plan to destroy Conservapedia when something really annoying happens :-). Oh, and there is no cabal! ---[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Terryeo]], Please block user if he causes problems at [[Dianetics]] or [[Scientology]]. See the relevant talk pages. I gave him a warning so far.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Rvm}} first edit was reverted by MountainDew (I mean DanH). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Vossy}} created a weird article which someone else immediately blanked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AmeriCan}} - disinformation [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=112288] -- [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::If I may, AmeriCan included some incorrect information along with some that was partially correct. I am not sure this abuse at all. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::Also, he has a continuing habit of cut-paste from other sites. See, for example his entry for [[Producerism]], copied in full from [http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pr/producerism.htm]. His contributions to [[Canada]] and [[hijab]], among others, are similar cut/paste jobs.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 18:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Vandalized Ronald Reagan, sock of Coolhandsluke --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Ilovebeingconservative (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:28, 17 April 2007) (Earliest: 04:19, 17 April 2007) [2]
*{{user|Sterile}} - 90/10 rule --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|ILikeCookies}} - not so much abusive edits as just plain fluff--doesn't quite seem appropriate. What does everybody think?
*#This edit to [[Dan Quayle]] wasn't too bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dan_Quayle&diff=prev&oldid=110148]
*The 6 random hex digit sock perp is back: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|GofG}} useless edits - warned
*{{user|Vyngarsson}} - 11 April 2007, trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Resurrection&diff=prev&oldid=99990] for a good example. Another example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=103140&oldid=101324]
*{{user|Phiattiangel}} - 11 April 2007, trolling.

===Dealt with===
*[[User:Tenna]] -- made a video game page full of obscenity and slander. Recommend permanent ban--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:14, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: Blocked. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:JeffersonDarcy]] -- linking to NAMBLA site. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=NAMBLA&diff=prev&oldid=129221] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**First, we know from Andy that linking to creepy sites is okay, even if you wouldn't put the material itself on CP (like the Silent Scream site). Second, JeffersonDarcy is a very good contributor, and has helped with some of my law articles.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**TOTALLY agree. You can't have it both ways, you know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Of course I linked to the NAMBLA site - the article was about NAMBLA. Who do you think I should link to there, NAACP? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 16:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
***In the future, maybe you should get permission to place links to questionable content. Naughty naughty [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
****that's a fair concern - but when someone posts the necessity for citations on the discussion page, I don't think that linking to the organization's official website would be a bad idea. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 16:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**The link could violate the Commandments, however this user's contributions do not show that this was anything more than a good faith attempt to improve the article. Therefore, '''No Block'''. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Truthandjustice}}
*#The reason given for Truthandjustice's block is: "'''Vandal'''") --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AdamNelson}} new user making sudden, unexplained big changes
*#---Ed, I saw it, about the same time Andy did. He's gone --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
*#09:49, 21 April 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AdamNelson (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Vandal & Per Andy
*{{user|AL}} off to a bad start --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:08, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*# 17:42, 19 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AL (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (made about a dozen edits in an hour, virtually all of which had to be reverted by others and myself because they removed factual info (e.g., SF entry) or inserted opinions as though they were facts (several instances))
*{{user|Nematocyte}} - warned not to annoy <s>TK</s> Terry.--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Ed, are you sure that TK has another problem with him? I am the one who has had problems with Nematocyte over my article [[Extraterrestrial life]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:I misunderstood I guess. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
* Dw1237200 sock of Ak1053287 (Who had a 3 day block by DanH starting on 12 April) got the second name on 13 April. Blocked, Infinite, both ID's. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|RightWolf2}} - threats, no useful edits --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*:: I vote for a block. I think he returned simply to threaten me, again. I've requested an explanation from him on his talk page. Who let him back? It's OK this time, but pretty soon we'll need some accountability for those who unblock someone who becomes a problem again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::Threatening, breaking the rules, blackmail... I'm no lawyer, but I don't think he has any legal grounds for his latest threat. I'll be blocking him. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::Isn't he already blocked? I got one of his socks earlier today. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::Didn't he admit to making overly polemic right-wing entries that he didn't really believe in himself awhile back to "test" the site? I remember getting into an argument with him about a month ago about his attempt to qualify Fred Phelps as a "leader in the pro-family movement". [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::You remember right, Dan. He's problematic. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*# 18:51, 21 March 2007 TimSvendsen (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked RightWolf2 (contribs)
*# 18:27, 21 March 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RightWolf2 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (Disruption, Threats. I did this to take the responsibility off Hoji.)
*{{user|Jeremiah4-22}} - for this edit http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biscuit&diff=97586&oldid=78309 (Blocked for 3 days) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Hillarycliton}} - blocked, all five contribs reverted --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Save Our Values}}
*#No contribs since 13 April --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AppliedFaith}} -trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=104416][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=104363], "sexual activity is always impure, even when conducted within marriage."
*#I gave him a question to answer at [[talk:Heterosexuality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for ONE YEAR --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:AnonymousLegion]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT) --Blocked by --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Mjc12]] - blocked by Conservative
*{{user|Polarbear}} - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by [[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
*TK blocked [[User:Cheney123|Cheney123]] (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
*[[User:Theelephant]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 18:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
*#18:09, 4 April 2007 Tsumetai blocked Theelephant (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (obscenity)
*{{user|Cooperstown4}} - 9 April 2007, TK blocked Cooperstown4 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandal/Nonsense/Insults)
*{{user|Zac4213}} - Was my block too hasty?
*{{user|Jaques}}- Many recent edits very similar to Wikipedia and use exact same pictures, See [[Whale]] and [[Plankton]].
: Jaques is a frequent contributor and many of his entries are good. The complaint would have to be more specific than this. There is nothing wrong about copying public domain pictures, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Mandolin2k}} - Joke entry (see "Jellystone")
*{{user|Godblessamerica}} - Copying from Wikipedia, prank edit here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wales&diff=prev&oldid=105299]
*{{user|Hamtandrus}} -self identified Holocaust denier. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial&diff=prev&oldid=105297]
::I think he's just being facetious.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::: He also says that he's 'done with this - place' [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::'''No block''' Holocaust denial isn't against the rules. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|SRogers}} - anti-Semitism; see piped link Judaism|bankers in Federal Reserve article, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Reserve&diff=90085&oldid=81656] -- 6 month block, (Conduct detrimental to Conservapedia --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Sureal}} - altered [[RMS Titanic]] to blame liberals for the loss of the ship, as well as previous bad edits for which he was warned. One week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Homeschool mom}} lays it on too thick - suspected parodist
: Warned 4/15. Awaiting response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:: No response. Another user said that her edits are copies from Wikipedia. Looks like we may have to block. Give her another day to respond?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Homeschool mom agreed to leave on her own. Case closed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-04-28T11:46:12Z

Hacker: /* Current Alerts */ Cabal

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
*ALERT:there are people on wikipedia planning to destroy you! There part of a "Cabal"? there members include the banned user icewedge. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hojimachong][[User:Tennis Sweatshirt|Tennis Sweatshirt]] 03:25, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:"Cabal" is something of an in-joke, we only plan to destroy Conservapedia when something really annoying happens :-). Oh, and there is no cabal! ---[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Terryeo]], Please block user if he causes problems at [[Dianetics]] or [[Scientology]]. See the relevant talk pages. I gave him a warning so far.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Rvm}} first edit was reverted by MountainDew (I mean DanH). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Vossy}} created a weird article which someone else immediately blanked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AmeriCan}} - disinformation [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=112288] -- [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::If I may, AmeriCan included some incorrect information along with some that was partially correct. I am not sure this abuse at all. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::Also, he has a continuing habit of cut-paste from other sites. See, for example his entry for [[Producerism]], copied in full from [http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pr/producerism.htm]. His contributions to [[Canada]] and [[hijab]], among others, are similar cut/paste jobs.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 18:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Vandalized Ronald Reagan, sock of Coolhandsluke --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Ilovebeingconservative (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:28, 17 April 2007) (Earliest: 04:19, 17 April 2007) [2]
*{{user|Sterile}} - 90/10 rule --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|ILikeCookies}} - not so much abusive edits as just plain fluff--doesn't quite seem appropriate. What does everybody think?
*#This edit to [[Dan Quayle]] wasn't too bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dan_Quayle&diff=prev&oldid=110148]
*The 6 random hex digit sock perp is back: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|GofG}} useless edits - warned
*{{user|Vyngarsson}} - 11 April 2007, trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Resurrection&diff=prev&oldid=99990] for a good example. Another example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=103140&oldid=101324]
*{{user|Phiattiangel}} - 11 April 2007, trolling.

===Dealt with===
*[[User:Tenna]] -- made a video game page full of obscenity and slander. Recommend permanent ban--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:14, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: Blocked. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:JeffersonDarcy]] -- linking to NAMBLA site. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=NAMBLA&diff=prev&oldid=129221] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**First, we know from Andy that linking to creepy sites is okay, even if you wouldn't put the material itself on CP (like the Silent Scream site). Second, JeffersonDarcy is a very good contributor, and has helped with some of my law articles.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**TOTALLY agree. You can't have it both ways, you know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Of course I linked to the NAMBLA site - the article was about NAMBLA. Who do you think I should link to there, NAACP? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 16:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
***In the future, maybe you should get permission to place links to questionable content. Naughty naughty [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
****that's a fair concern - but when someone posts the necessity for citations on the discussion page, I don't think that linking to the organization's official website would be a bad idea. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 16:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**The link could violate the Commandments, however this user's contributions do not show that this was anything more than a good faith attempt to improve the article. Therefore, '''No Block'''. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Truthandjustice}}
*#The reason given for Truthandjustice's block is: "'''Vandal'''") --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AdamNelson}} new user making sudden, unexplained big changes
*#---Ed, I saw it, about the same time Andy did. He's gone --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
*#09:49, 21 April 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AdamNelson (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Vandal & Per Andy
*{{user|AL}} off to a bad start --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:08, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*# 17:42, 19 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AL (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (made about a dozen edits in an hour, virtually all of which had to be reverted by others and myself because they removed factual info (e.g., SF entry) or inserted opinions as though they were facts (several instances))
*{{user|Nematocyte}} - warned not to annoy <s>TK</s> Terry.--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Ed, are you sure that TK has another problem with him? I am the one who has had problems with Nematocyte over my article [[Extraterrestrial life]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:I misunderstood I guess. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
* Dw1237200 sock of Ak1053287 (Who had a 3 day block by DanH starting on 12 April) got the second name on 13 April. Blocked, Infinite, both ID's. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|RightWolf2}} - threats, no useful edits --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*:: I vote for a block. I think he returned simply to threaten me, again. I've requested an explanation from him on his talk page. Who let him back? It's OK this time, but pretty soon we'll need some accountability for those who unblock someone who becomes a problem again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::Threatening, breaking the rules, blackmail... I'm no lawyer, but I don't think he has any legal grounds for his latest threat. I'll be blocking him. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::Isn't he already blocked? I got one of his socks earlier today. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::Didn't he admit to making overly polemic right-wing entries that he didn't really believe in himself awhile back to "test" the site? I remember getting into an argument with him about a month ago about his attempt to qualify Fred Phelps as a "leader in the pro-family movement". [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::You remember right, Dan. He's problematic. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*# 18:51, 21 March 2007 TimSvendsen (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked RightWolf2 (contribs)
*# 18:27, 21 March 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RightWolf2 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (Disruption, Threats. I did this to take the responsibility off Hoji.)
*{{user|Jeremiah4-22}} - for this edit http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biscuit&diff=97586&oldid=78309 (Blocked for 3 days) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Hillarycliton}} - blocked, all five contribs reverted --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Save Our Values}}
*#No contribs since 13 April --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AppliedFaith}} -trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=104416][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=104363], "sexual activity is always impure, even when conducted within marriage."
*#I gave him a question to answer at [[talk:Heterosexuality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for ONE YEAR --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:AnonymousLegion]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT) --Blocked by --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Mjc12]] - blocked by Conservative
*{{user|Polarbear}} - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by [[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
*TK blocked [[User:Cheney123|Cheney123]] (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
*[[User:Theelephant]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 18:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
*#18:09, 4 April 2007 Tsumetai blocked Theelephant (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (obscenity)
*{{user|Cooperstown4}} - 9 April 2007, TK blocked Cooperstown4 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandal/Nonsense/Insults)
*{{user|Zac4213}} - Was my block too hasty?
*{{user|Jaques}}- Many recent edits very similar to Wikipedia and use exact same pictures, See [[Whale]] and [[Plankton]].
: Jaques is a frequent contributor and many of his entries are good. The complaint would have to be more specific than this. There is nothing wrong about copying public domain pictures, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Mandolin2k}} - Joke entry (see "Jellystone")
*{{user|Godblessamerica}} - Copying from Wikipedia, prank edit here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wales&diff=prev&oldid=105299]
*{{user|Hamtandrus}} -self identified Holocaust denier. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial&diff=prev&oldid=105297]
::I think he's just being facetious.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::: He also says that he's 'done with this - place' [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::'''No block''' Holocaust denial isn't against the rules. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|SRogers}} - anti-Semitism; see piped link Judaism|bankers in Federal Reserve article, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Reserve&diff=90085&oldid=81656] -- 6 month block, (Conduct detrimental to Conservapedia --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Sureal}} - altered [[RMS Titanic]] to blame liberals for the loss of the ship, as well as previous bad edits for which he was warned. One week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Homeschool mom}} lays it on too thick - suspected parodist
: Warned 4/15. Awaiting response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:: No response. Another user said that her edits are copies from Wikipedia. Looks like we may have to block. Give her another day to respond?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Homeschool mom agreed to leave on her own. Case closed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-04-27T00:29:34Z

Hacker: /* "Wikipedia is six times as liberal" */ Come on!

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5]]

== #1 ==

Again, this isn't bias. If it had been an ''FA'', that would have been one thing, but ''GA'' is not quite the same level of recognition. This list is getting more and more ludicrous. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you here, Linus the Turbogeek. But can I call on you if I have technical computer questions? :-) A good Easter to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Um… you can't ''call'' me, but feel free to send me e-mail. A happy Easter to yourself as well. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal bias ==

The list contains still the statement that "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public", which still makes every statistician frown at conservapedia as soon as he looks where we get the data for Wikipedia from. A self-selected sample, with 131 categories, from which respondents can choose as many as they like, is compared to a Harris poll.

The other innovation of this example of Wikipedia bias is the definition of liberal bias; it now even has its own article as [[Liberal_quotient|Liberal Quotient]]. This article will make every mathematician frown, and it demonstrates that LQ is highly confusing. The article defines the LQ as Liberals/Conservatives, which has its own problems, but the illustrative part is that the article does not even once uses the definition of LQ correctly. None of the LQs mentioned in the article for particular groups, such as journalists, uses LQ correctly. It was never correct since it was created by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. And if you look at the [[Talk:Liberal_quotient|talk page]] you'll notice that most editors aren't able to apply the definition correctly either.

My suggestions would be 1) get a solid data base, since it it obviously a violation of good practice in statistics. 2) use a definition of liberal bias that people understand, now that it has been demonstrated, that the current definition is poorly understood. [[User:Order|Order]] 9 April, 18:40 (AEST)

:In addition, 3:1/1:2≠6. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Actually 3/(1/2) is 6. This is the correct part of it. You proabably mean 75%/33%? That is indeed something different and 225%. This just illustrates that the ''Liberal quotient'' is plain confusing. [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 11:00 (AEST)

== The Deluge criticism ==

As a Christian I can understand the criticism in which the Great Flood is treated as a piece of myth, or if you go to the Great Flood it will take you to the Deluge section: but what you have to realise is that the Great Flood can be seen in nearly all mythologies, for example, Dylan in Welsh and Atlantis in Greek. Therefore, the Noah account is part of wider scope, yet, it can be said that the Great Flood in all cultures could be the account of the same flood that Noah escaped in. {{unsigned|James M Hayes}}
:James, have you seen Conservapedia's article on the [[Great Flood]]? It covers the sorts of things you talk about, without using the word "myth" (or any derivative) at all (except in the external links). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hmmm...==
"Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases." OK, but this page cannot be edited. Isn't that just as bad? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 16:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Nooooo. this is entirely different in a way, I'm unable to explain to you. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:A page that has been removed cannot be read, this one can. That's a pretty obvious difference, I would think, and one that I had no difficulty explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wasn't Conservapedia's [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] removed as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm, yes there was such an article that was deleted. But it was removed on the grounds that it was a rant with obscenities. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::And then deleted and then protected against further re-creation? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::It was created and deleted twice (with the second version apparently being a copy of the first version), so presumably it was thought prudent to prevent the same thing being done over and over. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Myk, we allow a great deal of criticism of our site here, far more than Wikipedia allows. I was not involved in the deletion of that particular entry but over time, as this site becomes more stable and secure against vandalism, that page can be reopened just as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm a specialist in analyzing and remedying bias. Please bring any examples to my attention. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Wikipedia is six times as liberal"==

Isn't it time to do something about this? Whether or not the numbers are correct isn't for me to say, but if there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US, but three times as many liberals as conservatives on Wikipedia, then there must be about 2.27 times as many liberals on Wiki as in the US, not 6. The statement as it stands suggests that we don't know basic math, and I for one find that slightly embarrassing. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Quiet you fool! Don't you realize that if you argue with ASchlafly's math that it means you're wrong about everything? If he says that the Wikipedia is 108% liberal then it must be so!--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 15:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's approx. 2.25, and that's not how "liberal bias" is defined. Stop being an idiot, Aschlafly. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 20:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Falafel

2007-04-26T23:12:07Z

Hacker: Rmv'd nonsense, sorry Nunh-huh.

A falafel is a [[Mediterranean]] dish made with spiced [[Garbanzo Beans]].

[[Category:Food and drink]]

MediaWiki

2007-04-26T23:08:39Z

Hacker:

MediaWiki is a [[free software]] [[wiki]] engine, licensed under the [[GNU General Public License]], or GPL.. The software was originally created to power [[Wikipedia]], and, as it is [[free software]], is now used to power many other sites of varying size, including [[CreationWiki]], Conservapedia, the various projects of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], and [[Jimmy Wales]]'s [[for-profit company]], [[Wikia]], as well as being applied in small wikis for a single group. A notably different use of the MediaWiki software is by the company [[Novell]], which uses it to power several of its high-traffic websites, which are only editable by a select group, not the general public. As Wikipedia is an extremely high-traffic website, MediaWiki is highly optimized for preformance.

==Codebase==
The MediaWiki [[codebase]] is primarily written in [[PHP]], and can utilize either the [[MySQL]] or [[PostgreSQL]] [[relational database]] systems. MediaWiki is [[free software]], licensed under the [[GNU General Public License]], or GPL.

==Namespaces in MediaWiki==
MediaWiki divides pages into logical subdivisions by means of [[namespace|namespaces]], which, in MediaWiki, are denoted by a text string, descriptive of the purpose of the page, followed by a colon, all of which preceeds the title. This yields titles in the form of ''Namespace:Title''. MediaWiki is by default configured with certain stock namespaces, and others can easily be added for a website by those with access to the code. Different properties apply to different namespaces. The only exception to the naming scheme is that of the main namespace, which has no prefix.

==WYSIWIG editing==
Like many wikis, MediaWiki has a semi-[[WYSIWIG]] (an acronym for '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et) language for the editing of the content on the sites it powers, allowing users who do no know [[HTML]] to relatively easily generate web content of high technological quality.

==Customizable interface==
MediaWiki allows a high degree of customizability to websites it powers, often by directly editing the PHP of the site, although users are often able to edit a personal [[JavaScript]] or [[CSS]] (Cascading Style Sheets) file to customize large portions of the interface to their own preferences. An example of a common interface element primarily changed through direct editing of the PHP is the site logo, defined by the $wgLogo variable.

==See also==
*[http://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki.org]
*[http://www.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia]
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/ CreationWiki]

[[category:Wiki]]

Help talk:List of Templates

2007-04-26T02:47:20Z

Hacker: /* Feel free to improve this page */ Excellent page.

== Feel free to improve this page ==
I've just spent several hours creating this page, but haven't worried much about the following.
* Formatting.
* Order of sections.
* Whether I've categorised the templates correctly.
* The descriptions. They are very brief and may not always be accurate.
* Categories. Perhaps all templates that include categories should have their categories listed.
* Anything about substituting (subst:).
* Whether the templates are appropriate and within our rules and guidelines.
Please feel free to improve this page.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT) and 18:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Philip, this is one of the best pages I've ever seen at Conservapedia. Definitely in the top 1% in my book! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, it's great. I'm sorry I couldn't help more. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 22:47, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-04-25T23:51:24Z

Hacker: /* Current Alerts */ Phrasing

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-04-25T23:50:50Z

Hacker: /* Current Alerts */ GeorgeJ.W.

Free software movement

2007-04-25T23:49:24Z

Hacker: Added "see also"

[[Image:Floss draft.png|thumb|256px|Several free software mascots]]

Free software is software, the source code of which is available to the public, and which is licensed in such a manner that the source code, and the builds of such, are freely distributable.

==See also==
*[[Open source]]

[[category:politics]]

Open source (software)

2007-04-25T23:48:01Z

Hacker: Added "see also"

[[Image:Opensource.svg.png|right|100px|thumb|OSI logo]]
'''Open Source''' is a software development model being promoted by the non-profit '''Open Source Initiative (OSI)''' corporation and other organizations.
==Open Source==
Open Source refers to software where the [[source code]] available for anyone to modify. There are many different licenses under which open source software is available<ref>http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical</ref>, all varying slightly to the degree on the conditions under which the software can be modified and redistributed.

Although the development model for open source software may seem counterintuitive, for many projects it has been shown to be very successful. Generally, open source software is distributed with the underlying source code available for anyone to freely modify and redistribute. This development model is very similar to university research, where discoveries and research is published in [[peer review|peer reviewed]] journals, which is then built upon by other researchers spawning further ideas and discoveries.

There is a common misconception that open source software must be given away for free, but this is incorrect<ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee</ref>. Although most open source software is indeed available for free, with the authors usually charging for consulting and other services, there is no obligation for them to do so.

==Examples==
Examples of well known open source software:
*[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki] - Wiki software used for sites such as Conservapedia and Wikipedia.
*[http://httpd.apache.org/ Apache] - Apache web server, the most popular web server in the world.<ref>http://news.netcraft.com/</ref>
*[http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ Firefox] - [[Firefox]] web browser developed by the [http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/ Mozilla Foundation].
*[http://www.php.net/ PHP] - PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor, a scripting language used to create dynamic web sites such as Conservapedia.
*[[Linux]] - Operating system kernel used to create distributions such as the one running the server on which Conservapedia runs on.<ref>http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.conservapedia.com</ref>

==See also==
*[[Free software]]

==External Links==
[http://www.opensource.org/ Open Source Initiative]

==References==
<references />
[[category: information technology]]

HTML

2007-04-25T23:45:08Z

Hacker: OK, a list of HTML tags is not reasonable for embedding in this page.

'''HTML''' or '''Hypertext Markup Language''' is a system of codes used to create and design HTML documents. These documents can be viewed by a browser as web pages.

Mediawiki

2007-04-25T23:43:44Z

Hacker: Redirecting to MediaWiki

#REDIRECT [[MediaWiki]]

CP:A

2007-04-25T02:12:15Z

Hacker: Redirecting to Conservapedia:Abuse

#REDIRECT [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]

Conservapedia talk:Abuse

2007-04-25T01:56:02Z

Hacker: /* Accusations of trolling */ Restraining… myself…

I'm not objective because I've been editing the article myself. It seems to ''me'' that [[User:RightWolf2]] has the impression that unsupported opinion is OK as long as it's ''conservative'' opinion, and is at least near the borderline of Conservapedia Commandment #6. It particularly bothers me that, in order to support the statement that
:"[Wikipedia's] Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community."
he cites http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ although the link page contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Perhaps there is relevant material on that site, but it's his job to find it and cite it, not to keep reinserting a link to this site's home page. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia-Watch is Daniel Brandt's site. I don't know if it states that outright, but I try and look into it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This here http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html I think is what he is refering to. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::The word "homosexual" isn't on that page, either. Only one reference to "gay," an assertion that a Wikipedia administrator "attempt[ed] to falsely suggest that Brandt is gay."
::My objection is ''not'' that he's citing a strongly anti-Wikipedian website, although this should probably be made clear. The question is: does the site really say what he says it says, and, if so, where? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think that's right; what the editor is probably suggesting is if someone did the actual leg work of checking those users cited on that list, they would come up with a high percentage disproportionate to the general population of people who openly confess to being gay. Of course this, in Wikipedia, would be considered Original research. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Current Alerts==

We need to make sure that we removed current alerts after they have been handled. I propose that once someone has addressed a current alert, we only leave it up for a day max, because the current alert section is getting messy with comments.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 20:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:I also moved Current Alerts to the Top of the page, so we don't have to dig to find them.

*Excellent! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:56, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== What happened here ==
Goodness! Whatever happend here? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The page was archived, TK. Use the little history button at the top of the page. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I archived the page, as it was too large. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 02:19, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Speaking of large...that Conservative Abuse page is very much too long! I shall archive it now. Gee, I hope I do it right...anyone wanna say how to do it correctly? Or maybe somone wants to do it themself? :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I see the helpfulness is overflowing, and once again proving my point. A few who consider themselves "elite" will never offer help or information, because they like their positions of knowing the Wiki so well, they can supplant their ideas for the majority of the users. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::This sure seems like “criticize[ing] without solutions” [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Zach_Johnson&diff=next&oldid=96133]. I was under the impression that “Criticism, without offering a solution...is unacceptable behavior.” [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Zach_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=96161] I mean you posted your question less than 24 hours ago and “We don't have a running clock here, demanding instant action.” [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:AmesG&diff=prev&oldid=98009]--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 19:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly, as opposed to being rat packed instantly with criticism. Yes, you have it right. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:I’m not sure what you mean by “rat packed” but I’ll go ahead and assume it was intended in the politest and most civil manner possible and not as a baseless ad hominem attack. I’m also not sure what your other point was, but I think mine was fairly clear, if you are going to attack people for complaining about things then you ought not complain rather than fix things (I on the other hand have never told people to stop complaining as I think legitimate complaints well expressed benefit the site, especially on locked pages) .--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*Last night, I was talking to TK and I mentioned the possible idea of a tutoring system for new sysops or editors. I know this isn't really the appropriate page to bring this up, but it's a possible solution. I know Wikipedia does it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I once had the motivation for something like that (and I still occasionally got the drive back, like in [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help]]). Even these days, I try to help where I find calls for help, but it's relatively thankless work in many cases.
::On-topic: I think the first step for that would be to compile a list of open questions. We have some sysops who need a few pointers for sysop tools, and we got some sysops who need a full-scale "MediaWiki 101". It will be impossible to write a help without a starting point. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I am afraid we are past that now, they don't want others sharing knowledge, it robs them of their elite status. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:TK, I'm disappointed. I thought I helped you often enough for you to avoid such broad statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe eventually the field of thistles will be burned to grow anew. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive didn't really suit me. Can you leave some of the recent stuff up, so it's handier to use? When I drop in, I'm usually in a hurry. I just want to add a one-liner, on the model of what I see in front of me. If it's too clean, I kind of freeze up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Accusations of trolling ==

Excuse me, but adding the conservative Christian view of sex to [[Heterosexuality]] is not "trolling", and neither is removing loaded words like "genocide" and "murder" from [[Holocaust]]. [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 10:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::We are debating "editing done in an attempt to embarrass conservapedia" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:CPAdmin1/Proposed_Block_Policy#Attempting_to_embarass_Conservapedia]right now with a recommended ban of 6 months. These two edits, in my view, could earn you a one year ban, but you are free to put your input on that discussion page if you feel these were not attemtps to embarass Conservapedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: 'Genocide' and 'Murder' are both legal charges that the instigators of the Holocaust were found guilty of. They are facts. Conservapedia is in favour of facts (a fairly difficult statement, but bear with me). Hence removing facts from Conservapedia is trolling. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::So because the winners get to write the history books, objectivity and neutral language are to be thrown out the window? [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 11:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
AppliedFaith, the winners in World War II were those who were opposed to slaughtering innocents. I think it's okay that people who are ''not'' in favor of slaughtering innocents get to write the history books. Do you disagree?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think an encyclopedia shouldn't be using loaded terms that by their nature tell readers what to think. And try telling the civilians of Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima that the Allies were opposed to slaughtering innocents. [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 14:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::Don't be an idiot. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-04-25T01:53:14Z

Hacker: /* Current Alerts */ Added Scorpion

MediaWiki

2007-04-25T01:51:40Z

Hacker: Fixed the first sentence

MediaWiki is a [[free software]] [[wiki]] engine, licensed under the [[GNU General Public License]], or GPL.. The software was originally created to power Wikipedia, and, as it is [[free software]], is now used to power many other sites of varying size, including [[CreationWiki]], Conservapedia, the various projects of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], and [[Jimmy Wales]]'s [[for-profit company]], [[Wikia]], as well as being applied in small wikis for a single group. A notably different use of the MediaWiki software is by the company [[Novell]], which uses it to power several of its high-traffic websites, which are only editable by a select group, not the general public. As Wikipedia is an extremely high-traffic website, MediaWiki is highly optimized for preformance.

==Codebase==
The MediaWiki [[codebase]] is primarily written in [[PHP]], and can utilize either the [[MySQL]] or [[PostgreSQL]] [[relational database]] systems. MediaWiki is [[free software]], licensed under the [[GNU General Public License]], or GPL.

==Namespaces in MediaWiki==
MediaWiki divides pages into logical subdivisions by means of [[namespace|namespaces]], which, in MediaWiki, are denoted by a text string, descriptive of the purpose of the page, followed by a colon, all of which preceeds the title. This yields titles in the form of ''Namespace:Title''. MediaWiki is by default configured with certain stock namespaces, and others can easily be added for a website by those with access to the code. Different properties apply to different namespaces. The only exception to the naming scheme is that of the main namespace, which has no prefix.

==WYSIWIG editing==
Like many wikis, MediaWiki has a semi-[[WYSIWIG]] (an acronym for '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et) language for the editing of the content on the sites it powers, allowing users who do no know [[HTML]] to relatively easily generate web content of high technological quality.

==Customizable interface==
MediaWiki allows a high degree of customizability to websites it powers, often by directly editing the PHP of the site, although users are often able to edit a personal [[JavaScript]] or [[CSS]] (Cascading Style Sheets) file to customize large portions of the interface to their own preferences. An example of a common interface element primarily changed through direct editing of the PHP is the site logo, defined by the $wgLogo variable.

[[category:Wiki]]

MediaWiki

2007-04-25T01:49:57Z

Hacker: /*Customizable interface*/

MediaWiki is the software which powers many websites which serve collaborative projects. The software was originally created to power Wikipedia, and, as it is [[free software]], is now used to power many other sites of varying size, including [[CreationWiki]], Conservapedia, the various projects of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], and [[Jimmy Wales]]'s [[for-profit company]], [[Wikia]], as well as being applied in small wikis for a single group. A notably different use of the MediaWiki software is by the company [[Novell]], which uses it to power several of its high-traffic websites, which are only editable by a select group, not the general public. As Wikipedia is an extremely high-traffic website, MediaWiki is highly optimized for preformance.

==Codebase==
The MediaWiki [[codebase]] is primarily written in [[PHP]], and can utilize either the [[MySQL]] or [[PostgreSQL]] [[relational database]] systems. MediaWiki is [[free software]], licensed under the [[GNU General Public License]], or GPL.

==Namespaces in MediaWiki==
MediaWiki divides pages into logical subdivisions by means of [[namespace|namespaces]], which, in MediaWiki, are denoted by a text string, descriptive of the purpose of the page, followed by a colon, all of which preceeds the title. This yields titles in the form of ''Namespace:Title''. MediaWiki is by default configured with certain stock namespaces, and others can easily be added for a website by those with access to the code. Different properties apply to different namespaces. The only exception to the naming scheme is that of the main namespace, which has no prefix.

==WYSIWIG editing==
Like many wikis, MediaWiki has a semi-[[WYSIWIG]] (an acronym for '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S'''ee '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et) language for the editing of the content on the sites it powers, allowing users who do no know [[HTML]] to relatively easily generate web content of high technological quality.

==Customizable interface==
MediaWiki allows a high degree of customizability to websites it powers, often by directly editing the PHP of the site, although users are often able to edit a personal [[JavaScript]] or [[CSS]] (Cascading Style Sheets) file to customize large portions of the interface to their own preferences. An example of a common interface element primarily changed through direct editing of the PHP is the site logo, defined by the $wgLogo variable.

[[category:Wiki]]

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-04-25T01:46:31Z

Hacker: GFDL

{{unprotected|15:34, 25 March 2007|Ed Poor}}

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Differences with Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

MediaWiki

2007-04-24T02:36:43Z

Hacker: /* WYSIWIG editing */

MediaWiki

2007-04-24T02:36:26Z

Hacker: More expansion

MediaWiki is the software which powers many websites which serve collaborative projects. The software was originally created to power Wikipedia, and, as it is [[free software]], is now used to power many other sites of varying size, including [[CreationWiki]], Conservapedia, the various projects of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], and [[Jimmy Wales]]'s [[for-profit company]], [[Wikia]], as well as being applied in small wikis for a single group. A notably different use of the MediaWiki software is by the company [[Novell]], which uses it to power several of its high-traffic websites, which are only editable by a select group, not the general public. As Wikipedia is an extremely high-traffic website, MediaWiki is highly optimized for preformance.

==Codebase==
The MediaWiki [[codebase]] is primarily written in [[PHP]], and can utilize either the [[MySQL]] or [[PostgreSQL]] [[relational database]] systems. MediaWiki is [[free software]], licensed under the [[GNU General Public License]], or GPL.

==Namespaces in MediaWiki==
MediaWiki divides pages into logical subdivisions by means of [[namespace|namespaces]], which, in MediaWiki, are denoted by a text string, descriptive of the purpose of the page, followed by a colon, all of which preceeds the title. This yields titles in the form of ''Namespace:Title''. MediaWiki is by default configured with certain stock namespaces, and others can easily be added for a website by those with access to the code. Different properties apply to different namespaces. The only exception to the naming scheme is that of the main namespace, which has no prefix.

==WYSIWIG editing==
Like many wikis, MediaWiki has a semi-[[WYSIWIG]] (an acronym for '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''S''' '''I'''s '''W'''hat '''Y'''ou '''G'''et) language for the editing of the content on the sites it powers, allowing users who do no know [[HTML]] to relatively easily generate web content of high technological quality.

[[category:Wiki]]

MediaWiki

2007-04-23T23:06:45Z

Hacker: Evading 90/10

MediaWiki is the software which powers many websites which serve collaborative projects. The software was originally created to power Wikipedia, and, as it is [[free software]], is now used to power many other sites. As Wikipedia is an extremely high-traffic website, MediaWiki is highly optimized for preformance.

==Namespaces in MediaWiki==
MediaWiki divides pages into logical subdivisions by means of [[namespace|namespaces]], which, in MediaWiki, are denoted by a text string, descriptive of the purpose of the page, followed by a colon, all of which preceeds the title. This yields titles in the form of ''Namespace:Title''. Different properties apply to different namespaces. The only exception to the naming scheme is that of the main namespace, which has no prefix.

[[category:Wiki]]

Talk:Pornography

2007-04-23T22:10:33Z

Hacker: Needs deletion

==Should there be an article on pornography==
It would, I’ve no doubt, take a lot of patrolling to keep this article site appropriate – it may be a real target for vandalism—but that being said, pornography and how it should be dealt with is one of the major political issues of our times (less now than 20 years ago, admittedly) and if we are going to provide an alternative to Wikipedia this is a very important place to do so (especially as Wikipedia’s page on this subject prominently features an image that is clearly not appropriate for children.). I’d like to see this page unblocked so we can take a stab a writing a good article for it—I’d take a stab at one (I know enough about anti-pornography feminism to start and could look into 1st amendment law) if the sysops think that it is worth trying to write an article appropriate to Conservipedia on this subject.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Drop me a note at my talk page when you're ready to post your first draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Will do! --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==First Draft==
I never say your note, so I just went ahead and wrote my own diatribe. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:"the fact is that in the history of erotic literature it is virtually impossible to find any depiction of normal marital relations." That's just a flat out lie and misrepresentation. You seem to be forgetting books like the Kama Sutra, Joy of Sex and videos that are created for couples to use. And the 2nd paragraph is a POV. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not much about marriage in either one - the assumption is that you can go ahead and snuggle whenever and with whomever. I read Alex Comfort's book, a pernicious piece of polymorphous perversion.

::Let's look at Reginod's draft: [[/draft]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I like Reginod's draft save one bit. I think the intro should read "what is widely regarded as an intimate act" and not just "an intimate act." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Jrssr5--you forgot the Book of Solomon. And seeing how he had 50 wives, one assumed he knew a bit about marriage. --[[User:PassingThru|PassingThru]] 14:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there is a "Book of Solomon", and the Bible tells us he had seven hundred wives. Perhaps there is something faulty in your research methodology you should examine before making such obviously flawed assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that I am back, I would like to implement the draft I proposed along with the changes that Ed Poor has made (thanks for those, by the way).
The only objection I’ve seen to the draft is that we don’t need an article on pornography at all on this site. I’ve explained above that pornography and how society ought to treat it is one of the more contentious social issues we face today (and it gets tangled up with a number of other ones). I’m open to hearing other concerns before I implement it, but I’m not going to wait to terribly long as anything that needs changing can be fixed once it is in the article as easily as it can be fixed in the draft.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Please add something about the word derivation, like: '''Pornography,''' from the Greek ''porne'' meaning "prostitute,'' ... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I had no idea. Thank you for making that addition.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Reginod - you're welcome to use any of the following that's of any use to you. Shouldn’t an article on pornography at least have its definition correct?

The word "pornography" is about two hundred years old. It originated after the discovery of erotic drawings and sculptures uncovered in the archaeological excavation of the ruins of Pompeii. They included a sculpture of the god Pan having sex with a goat, and drawings of penises that were found painted on the walls of houses. The Victorians collected everything they found offensive and put it in a museum in Naples, which was called The Secret Museum. Only men were allowed in, and they were not allowed to laugh or make jokes. From 1849 to 1860 the Secret Museum was bricked up altogether.[http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2003/2003-07-38.html] Even today you need a permit and a guide to see the collection.

The word pornography derives from the Greek word ''porn'', meaning prostitution, and ''graphier'', meaning to write, and so it means to write of prostitution. The word was at first used to refer specifically to the Secret Museum, but began to take on a more general meaning by the middle of the 19th century.

Drawings and writings that were erotic were commonplace in earlier times, although they were not called pornography. In Samuel Pepys’ diary he writes about buying a French book called ''Escholle de Filles''. The book is a conversation between Francine and Susanne about sex, the older one telling the younger one all about it. Pepys saw the book in a shop, thought it was lewd and disgusting and did not buy it. However, he went back three weeks later and bought "the idle roguish book, L'escholle de filles; which I have bought in plain binding… because I resolve, as soon as I have read it, to burn it." He drank lots of wine, locked himself away, read it then burnt it. He said it was an idle and lewd book but it a good read for a sober man such as himself to read so as to learn about the villainy of the world.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bibles and pornography were the two items most likely to be confiscated by the Soviet Customs on entering the USSR. The common question from border guards/customs officers was always: "Are you carrying Bibles or pornography?"

Women respond to pornography in a way that is more similar to the way men respond than was previously thought. Erotic imagery elicits a faster and stronger electrical response in a woman’s brain than any other kind of image, recent research reported in the journal ''Brain Research'' reveals. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199474,00.html] The researchers expected lower levels of response, since previous research had indicated men that are more aroused by erotic images than women, but found that women’s responses were as strong.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m not sure where exactly in the draft you want to place all that information, but go ahead and add it on in. (I’ve added a few more sections to help place the information—I’d put the Museum part in the Modern History section, and the female response information in the effects on individuals section) think the draft is (at the moment) in good enough shape to replace the current article, and since the article is (I just noticed) locked (and for good reason I’ve no doubt) I encourage you to just add to the draft, just like it was a real article, until a sysop can be found to implement it. But, as I’ve said, it is a rough draft—I wouldn’t turn it in to a professor in the state it is currently in, but the wiki process is a collaborative one so I’m more than willing to put my work out there as a base for others to build on.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 22:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would gladly do that, but I don't know where the draft is!--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Try here [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pornography and erotica==
Thanks, Reginod & Britinme. Good draft, coming along nicely. I'll just make one quibble:

*Erotica uses sexually charged imagery for artistic purposes,

This isn't actually true. Not unless you think that "art" is entirely separate from politics, etc. Or unless you're trying to say that [[art]] is a category of [[free speech]], which gets into the "P*** Christ" and "D*** Mary" controversies.

In everyday use, [[erotica]] is [[pornography]]. If I'm wrong, please correct me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pornography is something that has degradation as its intent; it does not necessarily even have to contain sexual content. Erotica is material connected with love rather than sex, (though the love depicted is often of a sexual nature). So that although there is a large overlap between erotica and pronography, something can be one and not the other. For example the biblical book [[Song of Solomon]] might be readily categorised as erotica on the basis of its content, but few would call it pornography. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:16, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::As a literary genre, pornography is writing that has sexual arousal as its primary objective. Erotica is such material with artistic pretensions. Thus, the descriptive term pornography implies a statement about intentionality and instrumentality without reference to merit, whereas the term erotica is evaluative and laudatory. In Flesh and the Word, John Preston more baldly says, "The only difference is that erotica is the stuff bought by rich people." [http://www.glbtq.com/literature/erotica_pornography.html ]

:::Certainly some pornography with artistic pretensions ''calls itself'' erotica, often to avoid legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material, for example. But this is in no way the same thing as ''being'' erotica. (That's a rather dodgy source you're using there, btw.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m inclined to agree with you that erotica is pornography. I’d say that it makes up a subset of pornography – I’d be hard pressed to find a clear distinction. I think, in common usage, erotica=socially acceptable pornography, and pornography=socially unacceptable pornography.
:Both erotica and pornography are intended to arouse sexual interest. Erotica, perhaps, more subtly than other pornography, but in the end it is about eros – love mingled with sexual desire. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:09, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Erotica is pornography for those who have some inteligence. It requires a high level of literacy, and artistic appreciation. It takes skill to make, while plain pornography needs nothing more than a camera. But underneath, it is still pornography. It strives to be respectable, and to some extent suceeeds. But porn is porn, and thats all it will ever be. Just because its a well-written story, or a painting that takes incredible skill to paint, does not turn it magically acceptable. Erotica is a subset of porn, not something completly different. - BornAgainBrit

: I'm not convinced by this. I wonder if we can make the distinction that pornography is solely concerned with sexual arousal and gratification through the graphic depiction of sexual acts, and that works of literary and artistic merit can contain passages of explicit sexuality that function as an integral part of the total work but are not intended purely for purposes of sexual gratification. The famous example of this in English law was, of course, the 1963 trial involving Penguin books and the [[D.H.Lawrence]] novel ''Lady Chatterley's Lover''. I have read that, and it's true to say that the passages objected to in 1963 are fairly graphic (though perhaps less so by today's standards). However, they are not the central point of the book, and their purpose is not arousal but a deepening of understanding of the themes of the nove. IMHO they add a great deal to the overall merit of the work. Personally, I found a book like ''American Psycho'' a great deal more distressing in that it explicitly ties sexuality to graphic violence. It seems invidious to me to single out the depiction of erotica as pornography while ignoring the graphic depictions of violence that seem to pass unnoticed. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Needed fixes==
Since the article is locked can someone make the following changes, marked in '''bold'''?

"Due to a series of liberal decisions beginning with the Warren Court, pornography is aggressive'''ly''' sold and distributed in the United States without meaningful law enforcement'''{{fact}}'''. It is a $12 billion industry that affects and harms 40 million Americans'''(POV)'''. Pornography destroys relationships and exploits young people.[2]'''maybe include the article that claims this POV'''

Is there really such a large public concern about an alledged connection between pornography and porn? Check the link I provided in the debate about this subject for some statistics on the percentage of people who've ever seen porn or watch it on a regular basis, it might shock you to find that that multi-billion dollar industry only survives because it has many millions of consumers, not just the random perv, but lawyers, doctors, fathers and husbands.

I would also like to see a paragraph about erotica in ancient Rome, Greece, India, Egypt and the stone age, how it's related to human nature and that it does in some cases provide an outlet for potential rapists.
Just to make the article more balanced (and more serious).

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1343839.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] I think if you look at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] you’ll find a draft of an article that addresses some (but not all) of your concerns. Please add any relevant information to the draft. We are trying to get it into good enough shape that it can replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Needs Citations ==

to be in line with commandment 5. This page states much opinion and needs to be fixed by one of the people with the power to do it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Needs deletion ==

Simply put: terrible. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 18:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Globalism

2007-04-23T22:08:00Z

Hacker: stub

'''Globalism''' means treating the world as a single political unit.
{{stub}}
[[category:politics]]

Globalism

2007-04-23T22:07:36Z

Hacker: NPOV

'''Globalism''' means treating the world as a single political unit.
[[category:politics]]

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-23T22:01:53Z

Hacker: /* HELLO? HELLO? */ Same thing.

[[User_talk:CPanel/Archive1|Archive 1]]

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)

If the RATE group have considered the issues I have raised, I assume you will be able to produce documentaion as to the fact? I do believe Conservapedia has a policy regarding unsubstantiated claims. Note that mine come directly from the publications of RATE group members.
And if it helps any, Mr Splodge did earn a degree in Geology from Edinburgh University some 25 years ago. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:37, 16 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

:Conservative, you have taken the above out of context. The very first line stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process, in other words an idea not a fact. The next line was what you posted above. It seems that you misunderstood the context of the paragraph. The second line about the three fields would not be in opposition to any stance on conservapedia due to the first line stating that macroevolution is an idea not a fact. To not say that the three fields did not provide information would be a lie, where did the idea come from? I do not see how the methods of macroevolution could be a problem considering the number of pages on the site that use methods. There is no double mindedness between macroevolution and ToE on this cite because the macroevolution makes no claims of its stance on rather it is fact or fiction it is just a description of what scientists would consider macroevolution. My statements were cited, from university sources not from freelance websites, and no claims were made as to if macroevolution was fact or fiction, this was due to a chat with Ed Poor about keeping the edits open and placing ideology into the page, let the reader decide. If this page was to be a problem then perhaps those students that planned to take the SAT should look else where for as it stands the previous edit, before I added information, would not have given enough information to make the article a use (hence the reason for the VSA flag at the top of the page, that conservative moved after he reverted my edits).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: 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)

We need a ruling or something about this. Conservative keeps reverting the edits and has locked the page many times. He has yet to talk with anyone about the direction of the page and basicly has hijacked it from both users and sysops. Are we to assume that the page is to be locked until further notice to allow for edits/reverts only by Conservative? Could someone please give some direction so that I know if I am wasting my time by editing pages to have them hijacked?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:24, 23 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)
:::::The evolutionist have cried wolf over and over and over again. I saw your "citing much evidence to support the theory" and immediately reverted without bothering to even look at your "religioustolerance" and pbs citations. Read the [[Theory of evolution]] article which the panel approved and doesn't want to see changed in terms of its direction. Stop trying to be king of Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::"KING of Conservapedia?" You arrogant, ignorant... well, perhaps we're crying "wolf" because we are actually trying to build a ''conserevative'' encyclopedia. You are trying to build a widely censored grab-bag of half-truths. Note that I actually want to discuss this with you. Yes, consider that first sentence a personal attack. I'm through with people who don't actually want to build an encyclopedia. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and the reason that Conservapedia did not succeed like it could. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Thank you for showing the panel that you are a beacon of reasonableness. I am sure they are very impressed now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::::You're hardly a bastion of reasonableness, mr. Lock my talk page for two weeks. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::That was purely a accidental mistake on my part. If memory serves I was being pestered by AmesG and I merely forget to unlock it after I locked it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::::::::Do I have to separate you two?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I haven't looked at the article so have no opinion on the relevance or otherwise of the statistics that Hojimachong added, but it is not correct to paint statistics as neutral facts, because it is ''possible'' to introduce bias by the selection of statistics to include. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:OK, fair enough. The article already has enough statistics which refute evolution. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Panel submissions ==

I was under the impression that submitting a case to the panel was supposed to be a last resort for major conflicts only. If this is still the case, I suggest setting some rules to prevent abuse; after all, you are all students and you have better things to do with your time than adjudicate every petty squabble which comes up. To that end, I submit the following:

No user should submit an article to the panel for review without first:

*clearly stating their objections on the talk page of the relevant article
*inviting discussion of these objections
*inviting comments from any editors involved in the dispute, on their personal talk pages

If the discussion does not lead to a conclusion, the user should then:

*propose at least one possible solution to the conflict ('everybody do it my way' does not count)
*request the opinion of at least one '''neutral''' sysop

I don't think this is particularly radical; it's just good editorial practice in a group environment. If users can learn to solve their disputes through discussion, the project as a whole can only benefit.

I would also suggest that any user who attempts to bypass any reasonable dispute resolution process, and instead chooses to waste the panel's time by getting you to fight their battles for them, should be censured, up to and including permanent blocking if necessary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting [[CP:RFA]] and [[CP:RFB]] for official ratification ==

I hereby submit the pages linked to by the above redirects for transformation into official Conservapedia policies, where the result of the vote is binding. The current state of the RfA process simply takes potential applicants to an enitity, whether it be Sharon, Philip, Andy, or the Panel, which can decide, regardless of the community's desire, whether an individual becomes a sysop. I respectfully ask that you consider my request. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 06:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

----

==References tag to allow references to be used above; please do not remove.==
<references/>

== HELLO? HELLO? ==

Is there anybody in there? I posted two questions above and have received no response. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:So did I. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 18:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Template:Cquote

2007-04-23T21:41:57Z

Hacker: Think there was something wrong with it.

{| align="center" style="border-collapse:collapse; border-style:none; background-color:transparent;" class="cquote"
| width="20" valign="top" style="color:#B2B7F2;font-size:{{#switch:{{{size|{{{2|{{{quotewidth|{{{width|20px}}}}}}}}}}}}
|10px=20px
|30px=60px
|40px=80px
|50px=100px
|60px=120px
|#default=35px}};font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-weight:bold;text-align:left;padding:10px 10px;" | “
| valign="top" style="padding:4px 10px;" | {{{1|Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks. <noinclude>{{lorem ipsum}}</noinclude>}}}
| width="20" valign="bottom" style="color:#B2B7F2;font-size:{{#switch:{{{size|{{{2|{{{quotewidth|{{{width|20px}}}}}}}}}}}}
|10px=20px
|30px=60px
|40px=80px
|50px=100px
|60px=120px
|#default=36px}};font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-weight:bold;text-align:right;padding:10px 10px;" | ”
|-
{{#if:{{{4|}}}{{{5|}}}|
{{!}} colspan="3" style="padding-top: 10px" {{!}} {{#if:{{{4|<noinclude>Origin</noinclude>}}}|<cite style="font-style:normal;">—{{{4}}}{{#if:{{{5|<noinclude>Source</noinclude>}}}|, {{{5}}}}}</cite>}}
}}
|}

Template:Cquote

2007-04-23T21:34:06Z

Hacker: Standard template from WP, clone

{| align="center" style="border-collapse:collapse; border-style:none; background-color:transparent;" class="cquote"
| width="20" valign="top" style="color:#B2B7F2;font-size:{{#switch:{{{size|{{{2|{{{quotewidth|{{{width|20px}}}}}}}}}}}}
|10px=20px
|30px=60px
|40px=80px
|50px=100px
|60px=120px
|#default=35px}};font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-weight:bold;text-align:left;padding:10px 10px;" | “
| valign="top" style="padding:4px 10px;" | {{{1|Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.}}}
| width="20" valign="bottom" style="color:#B2B7F2;font-size:{{#switch:{{{size|{{{2|{{{quotewidth|{{{width|20px}}}}}}}}}}}}
|10px=20px
|30px=60px
|40px=80px
|50px=100px
|60px=120px
|#default=36px}};font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-weight:bold;text-align:right;padding:10px 10px;" | ”
|-
{{#if:{{{4|}}}{{{5|}}}|
{{!}} colspan="3" style="padding-top: 10px" {{!}} {{#if:{{{4|<noinclude>Origin</noinclude>}}}|<cite style="font-style:normal;">—{{{4}}}{{#if:{{{5|<noinclude>Source</noinclude>}}}|, {{{5}}}}}</cite>}}
}}
|}<noinclude>

Linus Torvalds

2007-04-23T00:04:13Z

Hacker: Wrote stub

{{stub}}

'''Linus Torvalds''' is a [[software]] engineer of [[Finnish]] origin whose best-known accomplishment is the initiation of the development of the [[free software|open-source]] [[operating system]] [[Linux]].

Lycanthropy

2007-04-22T12:29:17Z

Hacker: /* Evolutionary Perspective */ deleted nonsense

'''Lycanthropy''' is the mythical ability for a human being to transform into some sort of animal, most famously a [[wolf]]. From the [[Latin]] ''Lycans'' for wolf and ''arthron'' for man.

==Lycanthropy in the Bible?==
In the book of the prophet Daniel, chapter 5 we can read a possible instance of actual lycanthropy:
18O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:19And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.20But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him:21And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.

User:Ed Poor

2007-04-22T12:09:15Z

Hacker: Fixed link

<center>'''This user was nominated for [[Conservapedia:Request for Bureaucratship#{{PAGENAME}}|bureaucrat status]]. Please note your support or opposition.'''</center>

Archives: [[/archive 01|01]] [[/archive 02|02]]

----
{{Userboxtop}}
{{User NoEvo}}
{{User NoArbBlk}}
{{Userboxbottom}}

I am a SYSOP on this site. I've also taught SAT math prep, so if your article has any errors in arithmetic or statistics, prepare for a shock. I might just delete your entire contribution.

I'm also pretty good at science, logic, history, etc.

==Articles I need to write==

*[[hate speech]]
*[[mental illness]]
*[[Arthur Robinson]] - Christian, scientist, home school advocate
*[[Ann Coulter]] - must add her thoughts re: liberals
**[[Godless (book)]]
*"why are Jews so successful" - need a good title for this
*[[Todd Beamer]] - 9/11 hero
*[[Colin Ferguson]] - LIRR shooter
*[[exorcism]]
*[[Values clarification]]
*[[junk pyramid]] - the illicit drug trade

==Etc.==
Folks, true Wiki's have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy.

[[Special:Contributions/Ed Poor|Contribs]] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|user={{urlencode:Ed Poor}}}} Blocks] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/protect|user={{urlencode:Ed Poor}}}} Protects] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/delete|user={{urlencode:Ed Poor}}}} Deletions] 

My interests include history, religion, and science.

If you have any trouble on the site, a question about my edits/blocks/redirects/protects etc. please post on my talk page or email me and I will address them ASAP. I am open to working with everyone who demonstrates a genuine will to improve this site through their work.

{{user|Ed Poor}}

Use Google to search for ''Ed Poor probation''
[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ed+Poor+probation]

==Subpages==
[[/coulter]]

==NPOV==

Here are the most commonly violated principles of neutral editing at Wikipedia:
* It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.
* Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
* Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.
*Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See [[Wikipedia:No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]] or a vehicle for [[propaganda]] advocacy or [[advertising]].
*A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.
* Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.

I am on probation at Wikipedia for trying to point out some of these problems and just might get my account blocked! :-)

==New Pages==
Last 48 articles I started:
#[[Drew Barrymore]]
#[[Cinderella]]
#[[Education]]
#[[The Standard Deviations of Writing]]
#[[Islamist]]
#[[Bobby Darin]]
#[[Humiliation]]
#[[User contributions]]
#[[Mosaic]]
#[[Alice Miller]]
#[[Gavin de Becker]]
#[[Outer space]]
#[[Corporal punishment]]
#[[Seung-Hui Cho]]
#[[Conscience]]
#[[Human nature]]
#[[Healing]]
#[[Universalist]]
#[[Media Matters for America]]
#[[Ave Maria]]
#[[Alpha male]]
#[[Peter principle]]
#[[Murphy's law]]
#[[Biologist]]
#[[How do Wikipedians see Conservapedia]]
#[[Abortion controversy]]
#[[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]]
#[[Flying machine]]
#[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
#[[Debate:Is waterboarding torture]]
#[[Drunk driving]]
#[[Scrabble]]
#[[Martyr]]
#[[Monopoly (board game)]]
#[[Mass murder]]
#[[Narnia]]
#[[Terms to avoid]]
#[[Edit conflict]]
#[[General Theory of Evolution]]
#[[Ich bin ein Berliner]]
#[[Instant messaging]]
#[[Runaway greenhouse effect]]
#[[Kyoto Protocol]]
#[[Air pollution]]
#[[Rahab]]
#[[Primate (church)]]
#[[Slamming the door]]
#[[Wikipedia:POV pushing]]

These are the previous 50 articles I started:
#[[Right to life movement]]
#[[Saline abortion]]
#[[Comfort women]]
#[[Silent scream]]
#[[Speech codes]]
#[[Balint Vazsonyi]]
#[[Usage]]
#[[Theory and fact]]
#[[Rastafarianism]]
#[[Wiki way]]
#[[Red link]]
#[[The word]]
#[[Getting Better]]
#[[Brian Mitchell]]
#[[How to write a Conservapedia article]]
#[[Unguided evolution]]
#[[Fidelity]]
#[[Conscientious objector]]
#[[National Center for Science Education]]
#[[Infrared]]
#[[I Have a Dream]]
#[[Paul Simon]]
#[[Political spectrum]]
#[[Infinity]]
#[[Equality]]
#[[Trawl]]
#[[Orbit]]
#[[Deduction]]
#[[Sit-ins at lunch counters]]
#[[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks]]
#[[Diane Ravitch]]
#[[George Carlin]]
#[[Donkey]]
#[[The Manchurian Candidate]]
#[[Wolves]]
#[[Suffolk Punch]]
#[[Manure]]
#[[Riders of the Purple Sage]]
#[[The Family Man]]
#[[Brainwashing]]
#[[Frank Sinatra]]
#[[To Sir, With Love]]
#[[Strider]]
#[[Hate]]
#[[Methods of contraception]]
#[[Fornication]]
#[[Idiot]]
#[[Ellipse]]
#[[Blood type]]
#[[The Paradoxical Commandments]]
#[[Carbon dioxide]]

==Who do you think you are?==
{{Userboxtop}}
{{User talk self}}
{{Userboxbottom}}
Q: Is this your personal blog, or what?!

A: No, but it just so happens that nearly every word I type, link I create, article or template I start - gains instant and widespread acceptance.

Q: Isn't that a bit arrogant?

A: Okay, I guess you're right. Perhaps I should be more humble.

==Explanations==

There was a time when Wikipedia was a [[meritocracy]], and I rose rapidly through the ranks then. I got Jimbo to create the Mediation and Arbitration committee's, so he wouldn't have to be the sheriff all the time. I became the first elected bureaucrat, and pioneered the system whereby admins could enforce rules without having to take everything before a committee.

But I didn't see the [[anti-elitism]] creeping up and choking the life out of the place. [[Larry Sanger]] was right.

My only worry about Conservapedia is that it '''might''' make the equal and opposite mistake; it has certainly been accused of it, hundreds of times. But senior staff have been amazingly tolerant of opposing ideas here so far and I reason to hope they will continue to do so.

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Look at the content==
It was discussion, not an article. [[User:AL|AL]] 17:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I thought that was what the discussion page was for, I won't redelete if you put it back. [[User:AL|AL]] 17:22, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:We aren't very well organized. That was the AFD page for the [[Adultery]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, can you do anything to ban Rschalfy? He keeps making the [[Adultery]] page say that Adultery is when a womwn sleeps with a man. It's ridiculous gender bias, and as a victim of the exact opposite happening to me, you can see why I'm so upset abou this utterly laughable article. [[User:50something|50something]]

*You are talking about Andy's brother? You think Ed can ban him? Maybe vitamins would help you. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:05, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-22T12:06:54Z

Hacker: Fixing ref placement

[[User_talk:CPanel/Archive1|Archive 1]]

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)

If the RATE group have considered the issues I have raised, I assume you will be able to produce documentaion as to the fact? I do believe Conservapedia has a policy regarding unsubstantiated claims. Note that mine come directly from the publications of RATE group members.
And if it helps any, Mr Splodge did earn a degree in Geology from Edinburgh University some 25 years ago. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:37, 16 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

:Conservative, you have taken the above out of context. The very first line stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process, in other words an idea not a fact. The next line was what you posted above. It seems that you misunderstood the context of the paragraph. The second line about the three fields would not be in opposition to any stance on conservapedia due to the first line stating that macroevolution is an idea not a fact. To not say that the three fields did not provide information would be a lie, where did the idea come from? I do not see how the methods of macroevolution could be a problem considering the number of pages on the site that use methods. There is no double mindedness between macroevolution and ToE on this cite because the macroevolution makes no claims of its stance on rather it is fact or fiction it is just a description of what scientists would consider macroevolution. My statements were cited, from university sources not from freelance websites, and no claims were made as to if macroevolution was fact or fiction, this was due to a chat with Ed Poor about keeping the edits open and placing ideology into the page, let the reader decide. If this page was to be a problem then perhaps those students that planned to take the SAT should look else where for as it stands the previous edit, before I added information, would not have given enough information to make the article a use (hence the reason for the VSA flag at the top of the page, that conservative moved after he reverted my edits).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: 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)
:::::The evolutionist have cried wolf over and over and over again. I saw your "citing much evidence to support the theory" and immediately reverted without bothering to even look at your "religioustolerance" and pbs citations. Read the [[Theory of evolution]] article which the panel approved and doesn't want to see changed in terms of its direction. Stop trying to be king of Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::"KING of Conservapedia?" You arrogant, ignorant... well, perhaps we're crying "wolf" because we are actually trying to build a ''conserevative'' encyclopedia. You are trying to build a widely censored grab-bag of half-truths. Note that I actually want to discuss this with you. Yes, consider that first sentence a personal attack. I'm through with people who don't actually want to build an encyclopedia. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and the reason that Conservapedia did not succeed like it could. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Thank you for showing the panel that you are a beacon of reasonableness. I am sure they are very impressed now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::::You're hardly a bastion of reasonableness, mr. Lock my talk page for two weeks. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::That was purely a accidental mistake on my part. If memory serves I was being pestered by AmesG and I merely forget to unlock it after I locked it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::::::::Do I have to separate you two?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I haven't looked at the article so have no opinion on the relevance or otherwise of the statistics that Hojimachong added, but it is not correct to paint statistics as neutral facts, because it is ''possible'' to introduce bias by the selection of statistics to include. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:OK, fair enough. The article already has enough statistics which refute evolution. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Panel submissions ==

I was under the impression that submitting a case to the panel was supposed to be a last resort for major conflicts only. If this is still the case, I suggest setting some rules to prevent abuse; after all, you are all students and you have better things to do with your time than adjudicate every petty squabble which comes up. To that end, I submit the following:

No user should submit an article to the panel for review without first:

*clearly stating their objections on the talk page of the relevant article
*inviting discussion of these objections
*inviting comments from any editors involved in the dispute, on their personal talk pages

If the discussion does not lead to a conclusion, the user should then:

*propose at least one possible solution to the conflict ('everybody do it my way' does not count)
*request the opinion of at least one '''neutral''' sysop

I don't think this is particularly radical; it's just good editorial practice in a group environment. If users can learn to solve their disputes through discussion, the project as a whole can only benefit.

I would also suggest that any user who attempts to bypass any reasonable dispute resolution process, and instead chooses to waste the panel's time by getting you to fight their battles for them, should be censured, up to and including permanent blocking if necessary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting [[CP:RFA]] and [[CP:RFB]] for official ratification ==

I hereby submit the pages linked to by the above redirects for transformation into official Conservapedia policies, where the result of the vote is binding. The current state of the RfA process simply takes potential applicants to an enitity, whether it be Sharon, Philip, Andy, or the Panel, which can decide, regardless of the community's desire, whether an individual becomes a sysop. I respectfully ask that you consider my request. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 06:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

----

==References tag to allow references to be used above; please do not remove.==
<references/>

Title IX

2007-04-22T10:59:03Z

Hacker: Spelling

Title IX is a section of the Civil Rights Act which mandates that no one "be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" on account of sex. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).

Title IX is controversial not for what it says, but how it is applied. Under informal regulations adopted by the Democratic Administrations of Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, a gender [[proportionality test]] may be applied to schools that receive any federal money concerning. This test causes these institutions to attempt to have the same proportion of boys and girls on sports teams as are enrolled in the school, regardless of interest in sports. Some seek to apply this proportionality test to math and science programs also.

[[Category:United States law]]
[[Category:Sports]]

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-22T10:53:56Z

Hacker: Submitting CP:RFA and CP:RFB for official ratification

[[User_talk:CPanel/Archive1|Archive 1]]

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)

If the RATE group have considered the issues I have raised, I assume you will be able to produce documentaion as to the fact? I do believe Conservapedia has a policy regarding unsubstantiated claims. Note that mine come directly from the publications of RATE group members.
And if it helps any, Mr Splodge did earn a degree in Geology from Edinburgh University some 25 years ago. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:37, 16 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

:Conservative, you have taken the above out of context. The very first line stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process, in other words an idea not a fact. The next line was what you posted above. It seems that you misunderstood the context of the paragraph. The second line about the three fields would not be in opposition to any stance on conservapedia due to the first line stating that macroevolution is an idea not a fact. To not say that the three fields did not provide information would be a lie, where did the idea come from? I do not see how the methods of macroevolution could be a problem considering the number of pages on the site that use methods. There is no double mindedness between macroevolution and ToE on this cite because the macroevolution makes no claims of its stance on rather it is fact or fiction it is just a description of what scientists would consider macroevolution. My statements were cited, from university sources not from freelance websites, and no claims were made as to if macroevolution was fact or fiction, this was due to a chat with Ed Poor about keeping the edits open and placing ideology into the page, let the reader decide. If this page was to be a problem then perhaps those students that planned to take the SAT should look else where for as it stands the previous edit, before I added information, would not have given enough information to make the article a use (hence the reason for the VSA flag at the top of the page, that conservative moved after he reverted my edits).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: 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)
:::::The evolutionist have cried wolf over and over and over again. I saw your "citing much evidence to support the theory" and immediately reverted without bothering to even look at your "religioustolerance" and pbs citations. Read the [[Theory of evolution]] article which the panel approved and doesn't want to see changed in terms of its direction. Stop trying to be king of Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::"KING of Conservapedia?" You arrogant, ignorant... well, perhaps we're crying "wolf" because we are actually trying to build a ''conserevative'' encyclopedia. You are trying to build a widely censored grab-bag of half-truths. Note that I actually want to discuss this with you. Yes, consider that first sentence a personal attack. I'm through with people who don't actually want to build an encyclopedia. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and the reason that Conservapedia did not succeed like it could. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Thank you for showing the panel that you are a beacon of reasonableness. I am sure they are very impressed now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::::You're hardly a bastion of reasonableness, mr. Lock my talk page for two weeks. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::That was purely a accidental mistake on my part. If memory serves I was being pestered by AmesG and I merely forget to unlock it after I locked it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::::::::Do I have to separate you two?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I haven't looked at the article so have no opinion on the relevance or otherwise of the statistics that Hojimachong added, but it is not correct to paint statistics as neutral facts, because it is ''possible'' to introduce bias by the selection of statistics to include. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:OK, fair enough. The article already has enough statistics which refute evolution. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Panel submissions ==

I was under the impression that submitting a case to the panel was supposed to be a last resort for major conflicts only. If this is still the case, I suggest setting some rules to prevent abuse; after all, you are all students and you have better things to do with your time than adjudicate every petty squabble which comes up. To that end, I submit the following:

No user should submit an article to the panel for review without first:

*clearly stating their objections on the talk page of the relevant article
*inviting discussion of these objections
*inviting comments from any editors involved in the dispute, on their personal talk pages

If the discussion does not lead to a conclusion, the user should then:

*propose at least one possible solution to the conflict ('everybody do it my way' does not count)
*request the opinion of at least one '''neutral''' sysop

I don't think this is particularly radical; it's just good editorial practice in a group environment. If users can learn to solve their disputes through discussion, the project as a whole can only benefit.

I would also suggest that any user who attempts to bypass any reasonable dispute resolution process, and instead chooses to waste the panel's time by getting you to fight their battles for them, should be censured, up to and including permanent blocking if necessary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

----

==References tag to allow references to be used above; please do not remove.==
<references/>

== Submitting [[CP:RFA]] and [[CP:RFB]] for official ratification ==

I hereby submit the pages linked to by the above redirects for transformation into official Conservapedia policies, where the result of the vote is binding. The current state of the RfA process simply takes potential applicants to an enitity, whether it be Sharon, Philip, Andy, or the Panel, which can decide, regardless of the community's desire, whether an individual becomes a sysop. I respectfully ask that you consider my request. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 06:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:CP:RFB

2007-04-22T10:52:13Z

Hacker: New page: Sorry, my comp autofills fields. The odd edit summary is a result of that. --~~~~

Sorry, my comp autofills fields. The odd edit summary is a result of that. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 06:52, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Marriage

2007-04-21T20:35:59Z

Hacker: /* Christianity */ NPOV

'''Marriage''' is a form of interpersonal relationship; a kind of social contract. The word "marriage" by itself encompasses a broad range of meanings,<ref>The American Heritage dictionary includes legal marriage between a man and a woman, common-law marriage, and same-sex marriage[http://www.bartleby.com/61/2/M0120200.html]</ref> but it is often short for ''Christian marriage'' or ''holy matrimony,'' which is ordained by God and considered a [[sacrament]] by [[Roman Catholics]][http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm] (but not most [[Protestant]] denominations). In a few times and places, other forms existed, such as [[polygamy]] (multiple spouses) and [[homosexuality#Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual]] marriage (two people of the same sex).

In most cultures, marriage is regarded as a life-long commitment to another person, under any circumstances. Frequently this involves a public commitment ceremony (called a wedding) to each other and, if the participants are Christian, before God.<ref>[http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/liturgy/commonworship/texts/marriage/marriage.html The Marriage Service], ''The Church of England'', Retrieved 20 March 2007</ref> Unfortunately, sometimes people do not or cannot maintain that commitment, and the marriage ends in [[divorce]].

In most countries, married couples are treated as a single economic entity, and when one partner dies, the other may inherit all of their property in a simpler system than would be required without the marriage.

African-Americans were not allowed to marry in all areas of the United States until after the [[Civil War]], and mixed race couples were only allowed to marry in all areas of the US after a 1967 decision in the [[United States Supreme Court]].<ref> Virginia v Loving </ref> Before that time, 16 states prohibited interracial marriage. Disapproval of interracial relationships was long justified as divinely ordained and 1968 public opinion polls indicated that 72% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriages.

Same-sex couples are not allowed to marry in many areas of the world, although this restriction was lifted in April 2001 by [[Holland]] and January 2003 by [[Belgium]], which some conservative commentators have claimed is causing the destruction of traditional marriage in those countries.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602280810.asp]</ref> By the end of 2004, same-sex marriage was legal in most [[Canadian]] provinces and in the [[Yukon]] and is now enshrined in Canadian federal law C-38. <ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm]</ref> Same-sex marriage is also legal in [[Spain]] and [[South Africa]].

==Marriage in the Bible ==

The [[Old Testament]] clearly allows polygyny. (Gen. 4:19, Gen. 16:1-4, Gen. 26:34, Gen. 32:32, Exodus 21:10, Dt. 21:15, Judges 8:30, I Sam 1:1-2, II Sam 12:7-8, I Kings 11:2-3, I Chron. 4:5, II Chron. 11:21, II Chron. 13:21, II Chron 24:3.) This is less common, but never outlawed, in the New Testament.

The Old Testament allows for the purchase of wives (Gen. 29:18, I Sam. 18:25-27).

The clearest description of marriage in the Bible comes from I Corinthians 7:1-16:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

</blockquote>

==Christianity==

In most branches of Christianity, marriage is a life-long religious union between a man and a woman. However, many Christian groups claim that [[celibacy]] is more holy than marriage, and some, such as the Shakers, have gone so far as to prohibit marriage.

==Mormonism==

Historically, [[Mormonism]] has practiced polygyny (more than one wife). It stopped being a part of mainstream Mormonism in 1890, but some fringe groups still practice it.

==Islam==

Islam allows [[Muslim]] men to have up to four wives. The [[Qu'ran]] says(4:3): "Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one." <ref>http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/QURAN.HTM</ref>

Before Islam, it was common for a man to have many wives. The limit of four imposed by Islam was a way of controlling the situation. A Muslim may marry up to four women only on condition he deals justly with all of them. For example, he must provide each with separate living accommodation. Since this is difficult, most Muslim men in practice do not have more than one wife.

The reason for allowing multiple wives was for the welfare of widows and orphans. Muslim men are required to be financially responsible for the members of their family, and this was a way of ensuring that there was somebody to take responsibility for widows' and orphans' welfare.

It also allowed for a man who wished to father children to take another wife if his first wife was barren, and allowing the first wife to choose whether to continue in the marriage. A Muslim man is not allowed to marry another woman without the knowledge and consent of his wife, and the wife has the right to ask for divorce if she does not agree.<ref>http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/spot_full_story.asp?service_id=795</ref>

==Civil marriage==

Civil marriage is a legal [[contract]]. In the state constitutions of almost all states, this contract must be between one man and one woman. It gives each member certain rights and obligations. Most commonly, these include power of attorney, [[inheritance]] rights, sharing finances, and rights in relation to any children they may have. With the advent of no-fault divorce, most of these rights and obligations can be terminated by either party at any time for any reason.

Although not going as far as Holland and Belgium in making same-sex marriage legal, the Scandinavian nations and the [[United Kingdom]] allow same-sex couples to gain benefits by registering a legal commitment, although they acquire fewer advantages than opposite-gender couples receive automatically upon marriage. [[Germany]], [[France]], [[Andorra]], [[New Zealand]]and several parts of [[Australia]]. Different names are given to civil unions in different legal jurisdictions. This include civil pacts, civil partnerships, life partnerships, registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, significant relationships, reciprocal beneficiary relationships, and stable unions.

In the U.S. there are over a thousand federal benefits to marriage but none to same-sex civil partnerships. Couples registering same-sex relationships receive some state benefits in [[California]], [[Connecticut]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]] and [[Vermont]]. Rights accruing from same-sex marriages contracted in other states are respected in [[Rhode Island]], and some restricted benefits are available to same-sex partners in [[Hawaii]] and [[Maine]].<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm]</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

User:Ed Poor

2007-04-21T20:11:09Z

Hacker: Adding RfA banner, modded, should attract voters.

<center>'''This user is currently [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#{{PAGENAME}}|requesting bureaucrat status]]. Please note your support or opposition.'''</center>

{{Userboxtop}}
{{User NoEvo}}
{{User NoArbBlk}}
{{Userboxbottom}}

Archives: [[/archive 01|01]] [[/archive 02|02]]


I am a SYSOP on this site. I've also taught SAT math prep, so if your article has any errors in arithmetic or statistics, prepare for a shock. I might just delete your entire contribution.

I'm also pretty good at science, logic, history, etc.

==Articles I need to write==

*[[hate speech]]
*[[mental illness]]
*[[Arthur Robinson]] - Christian, scientist, home school advocate
*[[Ann Coulter]] - must add her thoughts re: liberals
**[[Godless (book)]]
*"why are Jews so successful" - need a good title for this
*[[Todd Beamer]] - 9/11 hero
*[[Colin Ferguson]] - LIRR shooter
*[[exorcism]]
*[[Values clarification]]
*[[junk pyramid]] - the illicit drug trade

==Etc.==
Folks, true Wiki's have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy.

[[Special:Contributions/Ed Poor|Contribs]] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|user={{urlencode:Ed Poor}}}} Blocks] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/protect|user={{urlencode:Ed Poor}}}} Protects] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/delete|user={{urlencode:Ed Poor}}}} Deletions] 

My interests include history, religion, and science.

If you have any trouble on the site, a question about my edits/blocks/redirects/protects etc. please post on my talk page or email me and I will address them ASAP. I am open to working with everyone who demonstrates a genuine will to improve this site through their work.

{{user|Ed Poor}}

Use Google to search for ''Ed Poor probation''
[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ed+Poor+probation]

==Subpages==
[[/coulter]]

==NPOV==

Here are the most commonly violated principles of neutral editing at Wikipedia:
* It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.
* Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
* Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.
*Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See [[Wikipedia:No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]] or a vehicle for [[propaganda]] advocacy or [[advertising]].
*A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.
* Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.

I am on probation at Wikipedia for trying to point out some of these problems and just might get my account blocked! :-)

==New Pages==
Last 48 articles I started:
#[[Drew Barrymore]]
#[[Cinderella]]
#[[Education]]
#[[The Standard Deviations of Writing]]
#[[Islamist]]
#[[Bobby Darin]]
#[[Humiliation]]
#[[User contributions]]
#[[Mosaic]]
#[[Alice Miller]]
#[[Gavin de Becker]]
#[[Outer space]]
#[[Corporal punishment]]
#[[Seung-Hui Cho]]
#[[Conscience]]
#[[Human nature]]
#[[Healing]]
#[[Universalist]]
#[[Media Matters for America]]
#[[Ave Maria]]
#[[Alpha male]]
#[[Peter principle]]
#[[Murphy's law]]
#[[Biologist]]
#[[How do Wikipedians see Conservapedia]]
#[[Abortion controversy]]
#[[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]]
#[[Flying machine]]
#[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
#[[Debate:Is waterboarding torture]]
#[[Drunk driving]]
#[[Scrabble]]
#[[Martyr]]
#[[Monopoly (board game)]]
#[[Mass murder]]
#[[Narnia]]
#[[Terms to avoid]]
#[[Edit conflict]]
#[[General Theory of Evolution]]
#[[Ich bin ein Berliner]]
#[[Instant messaging]]
#[[Runaway greenhouse effect]]
#[[Kyoto Protocol]]
#[[Air pollution]]
#[[Rahab]]
#[[Primate (church)]]
#[[Slamming the door]]
#[[Wikipedia:POV pushing]]

These are the previous 50 articles I started:
#[[Right to life movement]]
#[[Saline abortion]]
#[[Comfort women]]
#[[Silent scream]]
#[[Speech codes]]
#[[Balint Vazsonyi]]
#[[Usage]]
#[[Theory and fact]]
#[[Rastafarianism]]
#[[Wiki way]]
#[[Red link]]
#[[The word]]
#[[Getting Better]]
#[[Brian Mitchell]]
#[[How to write a Conservapedia article]]
#[[Unguided evolution]]
#[[Fidelity]]
#[[Conscientious objector]]
#[[National Center for Science Education]]
#[[Infrared]]
#[[I Have a Dream]]
#[[Paul Simon]]
#[[Political spectrum]]
#[[Infinity]]
#[[Equality]]
#[[Trawl]]
#[[Orbit]]
#[[Deduction]]
#[[Sit-ins at lunch counters]]
#[[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks]]
#[[Diane Ravitch]]
#[[George Carlin]]
#[[Donkey]]
#[[The Manchurian Candidate]]
#[[Wolves]]
#[[Suffolk Punch]]
#[[Manure]]
#[[Riders of the Purple Sage]]
#[[The Family Man]]
#[[Brainwashing]]
#[[Frank Sinatra]]
#[[To Sir, With Love]]
#[[Strider]]
#[[Hate]]
#[[Methods of contraception]]
#[[Fornication]]
#[[Idiot]]
#[[Ellipse]]
#[[Blood type]]
#[[The Paradoxical Commandments]]
#[[Carbon dioxide]]

==Who do you think you are?==
{{Userboxtop}}
{{User talk self}}
{{Userboxbottom}}
Q: Is this your personal blog, or what?!

A: No, but it just so happens that nearly every word I type, link I create, article or template I start - gains instant and widespread acceptance.

Q: Isn't that a bit arrogant?

A: Okay, I guess you're right. Perhaps I should be more humble.

==Explanations==

There was a time when Wikipedia was a [[meritocracy]], and I rose rapidly through the ranks then. I got Jimbo to create the Mediation and Arbitration committee's, so he wouldn't have to be the sheriff all the time. I became the first elected bureaucrat, and pioneered the system whereby admins could enforce rules without having to take everything before a committee.

But I didn't see the [[anti-elitism]] creeping up and choking the life out of the place. [[Larry Sanger]] was right.

My only worry about Conservapedia is that it '''might''' make the equal and opposite mistake; it has certainly been accused of it, hundreds of times. But senior staff have been amazingly tolerant of opposing ideas here so far and I reason to hope they will continue to do so.

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Look at the content==
It was discussion, not an article. [[User:AL|AL]] 17:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I thought that was what the discussion page was for, I won't redelete if you put it back. [[User:AL|AL]] 17:22, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:We aren't very well organized. That was the AFD page for the [[Adultery]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?

2007-04-19T16:58:01Z

Hacker: /* BAAAAAD! */ Ah yes, the rape.

{{debate}}

Were the [[Crusades]] Good or Bad

==Necessary==
This is no question of 'Good' or 'Bad'. It's a question of necessity. And it might be at the time to prepare for the next and maybe final crusade. It's about time to stand up and fight for your values. Currently Muslims all around the world are pressing us to accept their ridiculous values. If you do not agree it means flag burning and terrorism. So, killing people (even at war) is a bad thing, but it might be necessary for our own survival.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wait… you're suggesting we kill people for burning a piece of cloth that we've attached value to? Really, why is flag burning by aggressive individuals who, might I add, are not American themselves, significant? I am also wary of advocating "fighting for ones values". Where can we reconcile violence with "love one another"? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 09:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Good==

Crusades are good only if they involve Indiana Jones.

The first crusade was fine. It was wrong of the [[Muslim]]s to be killing pilgrims who traveled to [[Jerusalem]]. It was okay to fight back.

Reply: Only Against the guilty, As a Jew and a person extremely concerned with human rights my opinion is that: no matter for what reason the massive murder of civilians without cause other than religios orientation is sin. The Mass killings of Jews and Muslims are underplayed in todays textbook. Holy wars are fundamentally contradictory, as most religios scholars declare that killing is Wrong. History has tought us that murder is followed only by murder.

Today, if a nation took over Jerusalem and started killing [[Christian]]s who wanted to visit it, we would definitely fight back. On the other hand, the second and fourth crusades were not right and have left an embarrassing scar on the Christian world to this day. I don't know whose idea it was to sack [[Constantinople]], but it shows the true state of these other crusades. The third crusade was a slight exception to this general state of the later crusades, but its motives are debatable. I suppose that this whole argument really boils down to weather war is "right" or not. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)

I don't think either Billy or Tim really understand certain aspects of the crusades. First of all, Billy said there was no such thing as a just war, but really there are just reasons to fight. Not all the crusades were just but to say that no war is just is false. Billy quoted "Love thy neighbor as thy self." That's right but sometimes you need to choose the lesser of sins. Which is worse, to let the defenseless be slaughtered or to defend the defenseless? Either way you're violating the commandment. Which is why there is reconciliation. ''Double Edge''

Comment: Of course it is sinful to fight a war for the wrong reasons, but I don't believe that every war is by definition sinful. As noted above, war is sometimes the lesser of two evils. But remember that it only takes one party to start a fight. When someone is determined to start a fight, we cannot avoid it- we can only decide, through our actions, whether it will be a war or a massacre. We know that evil will result whichever course we take, but it does not follow that both courses are sinful. The course which leads to the lesser evil- or the greater good- is the right course, and therefore is not sinful. I believe that we all sin, but I do not believe that God puts us in positions where it is impossible for us to choose a course that pleases him. (See I Corinthians 10:13)- Chris J

Well said Double Edge. War is never morally right, war is never good. God never intended for war, but sadly, man is in a fallen state and has turned away from this original intent. War has become a very real thing in the world, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:19, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I don't see anything wrong with having a Christian holy war. Making Jerusalaem safe for defenseless pilgrims was a worthy goal. The Crusades were good.

Mr. Schlafly

Tim said the pilgrimages were useless. But the crusaders weren't only defending pilgrims they were defending their fellow christians in Byzantium and many of the jews that lived in the Middle-East.

: This is simply false. Many Jews died due to the crusades and many Christians in Byzantium were killed by the crusaders. Constantinople itself was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. The Jews were so harmed by the crusades that the standard Askenazi liturgy changed to remember the events(to give you an idea of how rare that is, the standard Orthodox liturgy didn't change at all after the Holocaust). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I believe that the first two crusades were in defense and justified and the second two were wrong. If you believe that all wars are sinful. Then a country cannot have a defense system or military at all. If someone were to try to kill and steal from your own family you would stop them by force or would you watch them get killed. This is the same thing with a war on a national level. Ultimatlely if you do not believe in war we would not have a nation. The United States had to have its own war for independence the Revolutionary war in which, many men died. The Ten Comandments says "Thy Shalt Not Kill", but are you not killing when you refuse to defend the defenseless? For example in War World II, if it were not for the Alled forces and the United States the entire Jewish people could have been destroyed. I guess when Hitler was taking over Europe you would sat back and watched because you are a pacifist. Deborah G.

---
Tim said that the Chrsitians should have been smart enough not to go somewhere where they might get killed, and that a country has a right to control its borders. ---

However, I would like to remind everybody that things were different back in the Middle-Ages, and that the first victamized christian pilgrims had no way of knowing about their impending doom. They couldn't just check the internet for the latest Middle Eastern travel information. ---

As for the Europeon reaction to such terrorism, how is it wrong? So your statement is implying that if your friends & family got intentionally mutilated by someone, that the only 'just' action would be to find a new travel desination? ---

Also all wars cannot be bad, if they were (are) then why does God often take sides? (see different Biblical wars, specifically involving the Old Testament) --- Joe B

If the European Christians were not willing to fight the expansionist Mohammedans, then the Mohammedans would have invaded Europe. Thanks to the Crusades, Europe
was not destroyed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Out of curiosity, why do you call Muslims "Mohammedans"? We don't call Americans "Washingtonans" or Jewish people "Abrahamans". I'm not saying the term "Mohammedan" is necessarily incorrect. It used to be the popular term for Muslims in the West. But why do you think it is appropriate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:38, 24 February 2007 (EST)

: Abraham did not create the Jewish religion, and Washington did not create American political philosophy. Lots of movements are named after their original founder and leader. I use the term "Mohammedan" because it is a neutral and well-understood term, and is the most accurate term for the way I was using it. Mohammad believed in using military force to expand his empire, and so did his followers. That makes it Mohammedan. Sometimes people use the term "moslem" or "muslim" to refer to narrower religious goals. Whether those narrower religious goals include territorial expansion would just be a distraction from the point I was making. The term Mohammedan is an ordinary dictionary word, and there is no reason not to use it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 24 February 2007 (EST)

::There is much revisionism on this subject; let's review some of the meta-historical aspects at work.

::Mohammadism arose in the vacuum of the collapse of the Roman Empire and was spread by force. However, pockets of non-Islamic and Christian communities remained throughout Asia Minor and the Middle East (as they do today). These non-Muslim's living in the midst of Islam were very oppressed, and thier lives were spared only by accepting [[dhimmi]] status. Trade relations between Europe and the East (India and China), which had been going down the [[silk route]] since ancient times was vital to all economies of ancient civilizations. The rise of Islam disrupted this.

::The first four Crusades were an attempt to "roll back" the encroachment of Islam on Western Civilization, end the oppression of Christian minorities in Muslim territiories, and restore the disruption of trade with the East which had an impact on prosperity and living standards worldwide. Western commercial trading interests, traveling the silk route in caravans were often taken hostage, forced to convert to Islam or suffer a hideous death such as beheading at the hands of persons and groups we today would probably describe as terrorists. By the end of the last Crusade it was apparant the approach of direct confrontation and rollback over two centuries had failed. Nevertheless, the economic impact of reduced trade on living standards had been felt.

::Christopher Columbus came up with an idea to restore trade with the East ''without'' direct military confrontation to gain access to the trade routes -- sail west to get east. Instead of confronting the problem head on, simply go around it. It was risky and had never been tried, but hopes of regaining the prosperity of old times fueled expectations. So Columbus was granted patronage by government in those desperate times to solve the threat of Islamic terrorists to Western commercial interests.

::History records what happened was bigger than anyones expections; rather than simply restore commercial contact between the Western Europe, India, and China, Western Europe embarked on an economic expansion throughout the [[Western hemisphere]] for the next 500 years. This was rewarding to the posterity of Europeans for several generations, however the original cause of the problem -- the threat of Islam to the economic interests and prosperity of the rest of the world -- had never been dealt with, and was forgotten.

::Today, a half millenium later, when the world is much smaller because of the ease of travel and communications, we've discovered the very problems that (1) caused the Crusades, and (2) led to the discovery of America, had never been dealt with, and now we are faced with the same problems decision makers and problem solvers of centuries ago were faced with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Please could you provide your sources for the "disruption of trade" leading to economic problems in Western Europe? My understanding of the First Crusade is that it was largely based no reports of abuse of pilgrims, though whether that abuse was remotely institutionalised or simply the activity of individuals and small groups acting on their own behalf (just as there were thieves and bandits in Western Europe) is certainly open to debate.

::::The First Crusade is also known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Crusade Pauper's Crusade]; IOW, because of the widespread economic disruption over several centuries which resulted with the rise of Islam, a vast army of unemployed with little hope under the status quo and nothing to lose answered the call for the Crusade. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bad==

Contrary to what some people believe I believe there is no such thing as a just war because war in and of itself is unjust, calling it a “Holy War” doesn’t change anything in fact it makes it worse because you are lying to yourself and your comrades ( no war is holy, just like no war is just.) The reason we know that no war is holy or just is that it is not just or holy to kill people for personal gain( if that is just then why are there laws and commandments to follow?). War goes against our teachings because we learn from the Bible and Jesus’ teachings to treasure human life and to be compassionate towards each other. You are neither treasuring human life nor being compassionate when you are killing your neighbor.
[[Billy M.=)]]

I Hate to say it but I Agree with Billy here, but not for the same reasons.
You can't justify a war just to protect pilgrims. It was not necessary for Christians to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Unlike Islam Christianity does NOT require pilgrimages. Jerusalem was nothing more than a tourist attraction. The Christian Pilgrims should have been smart enough to not go there because they could be killed. There is no justification for the crusades as a "Holy War." Christianity is not a violent religion. We do not start wars just because some Christians get murdered, if we did, we would be at war with China and many other countries that persecute Christians. A Country has a right to control who comes into that country. The Muslims had a right to control who came to Jerusalem. This does not mean that they were justified in killing the Christians, but the Christians should not have assumed the right to go wherever they wanted regardless of the wishes of the people who live there. If Muslims all of a sudden decided that they wanted to make pilgrimages to America for some reason, and did not think that the American government should have a say in the matter, we wouldn't let them would we? There may have been justification for a political war against the Muslims, if they were a threat to the the European countries. Even if there was reason for a political war, the crusades went way too far, and there was no justification for a holy war. The Pope was wrong to promise spiritual benefits to those who fought in the war. He tricked many people into joining the crusades because they thought that it would make them go to heaven if they died. Also most of the crusades were only fought for ambition and plunder.

Tim

Although I do not believe that the crusades were good, I Agree with double edge on one point: There ''IS'' such a thing as a just war! Billy's circular reasonings (see above) do not change that.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Baaad!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thoroughly bad, and completely undesirable. Killing people because of their beliefs is not justifiable. Admittedly, the Muslims were in the wrong to kill pilgrims to Jerusalem, but the wholesale massacre of the Muslims was not a viable response. Sorry to tell you, but cannibalism is not justifiable except under very extreme circumstances. (Like, say, the Donner Party, not just because you're hungry). [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:53, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:But the Crusades were not just motivated by peoples beliefs; Islam had disrupted East-West trade and thus people's living standards by not allowing passage of trading caravans down the silk route, taking hostage of traders and forcing conversions, or killing them outright. There were economic factors at work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Killing people because you want more money. Yep, that's ''quite'' morally sound. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::Has nothing to do with money; eating food is an "economic factor". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::It's completely possible to grow your own food, thus removing the necessity for trade routes to obtain it. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The thing that makes humans different from animals is trade. As Adam Smith said, no one ever saw two dogs trade one bone for the other. As Smith said, in that rude state of socierty before the division of labor is implemented, a man endevors to supply all his own needs, when he's hungray, he goes to the forest to hunt, when his roof needs patching, he goes to woods for material, etc. But once society reaches an advanced state of development (yes, even ancient Eygpt was an advanced state of development), a person cannot supply the everyday needs he has, and is far more dependant upon the produce of '''''other''''' peoples labor.

:::::Hence, trade was just as vital then for the economic needs of people and their survival as it is today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::That's it. I quit. I have more important things to do than try to bring people out of the middle ages. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'll put my retort to Rob's argument here when I have time, BTW, just so I'm not labeled as having run away because I have no defense. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Well, okay, I guess I don't quit. Here's my retort:

:::::::''Trade can take place within a single country.'' 'Nuff said. And don't get me started about the other claim… --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Comment==

Christian theologians, notably [[Thomas Aquinas]], developed a set of rules for deciding whether a war was a just war. Aquinas' formulation is part of the Catholic catechism.

Perhaps someone needs to write an article on [[Just War theory]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thou shalt not kill. It seems pretty straight forward to me. Christians shouldn't use reconciliation as some kind of cop-out. It's an abuse of your religion if you know you're going out to do something bad and then stop at the church on the way back to confess.

'thou shalt not murder', actually, but you're still right - pretty much everything Jesus said was against war. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

==BAAAAAD!==

I've never heard of a situation where a bunch of barbarians burning, pillaging and raping everything on their path was a good thing...

The way I see it, the only way you could distinguish between the crusaders and the Mongols was by the colour of their skin.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Ah yes. The widespread rape that occured. Good point. Tell me ''that'' was a good thing! --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 12:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?

2007-04-18T18:02:27Z

Hacker: /* Better */ Better

== Worse ==
I personally think that games are getting worse as they improve. Enhanced graphics allow game makers to make suggestive, and even pornographic images. That's a moral argument, here's a differant side. I was playing Star Wars Republic Commando on my friend's Xbox. And that thing was so hard, it wasn't even like a fun challenge. You had to walk around as a clone trooper using one joystick and with the other you had to aim the clone troopers gun. This sort of gameplay coupled with a first person view of the game(rather than just a objective which I perfer most of the time) made the game nearly impossible. I found similar gameplay on Halo, although that seemed slightly easier.

Double Edge

Pornographic images? Apparently someone has never played "Custer's Revenge."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Better==
Of course the learning edge is going to be hard to adjust to, but once you're up there playing with the big boys, a whole new level of play emerges. Double Edge, you seem not to be the biggest Halo player, so I'm guessing you can't tell me what "superjumps", "sweepsticking", and "track-shooting" are. Scratching the surface, of course there doesn't seem to be too much complexity. But by utilizing existing features, a whole new level of complexity emerges. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply '''I was not complaining about the lack of compexity in Halo. I was rather complaining about the incredibly hard and unnessiarily complecated gameplay.

::Improved graphics and sound combined with greater computing power are making possible games that were inconceivable 10 years ago. Right now I have "Medieval 2: Total War" loaded up on my PC. The battle graphics are absolutely incredible; it is almost like a window into history. And while "twitch" games may be harder with the additional controls to master, I think they're still a lot better and will only continue to improve.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Better. The games are harder, but your skill evolves over time, and the greater substance makes the game infinitely more pleasurable. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-04-18T18:01:19Z

Hacker: /* Funny, maybe? */ Fixed OL

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==

# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Stem Cells: Why or why not]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia: 'το πνευμα ἁγιον'; how would you translate it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus|Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still preform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?|Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible|On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible...]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britian become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?|Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Keep Richard Around?|Should Richard Stay?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]

==Scientific debates==

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Do violent video games play a role in people on the edge of sanity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==

# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Major bias in conservapedia]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Communists at Conservapedia|Should known communists be banned from editing at Conservapedia??]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Should I remove the gross Spanish profanity passing itself off as translations in several articles?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Why do so many topical debates descend into embarassing personal attacks?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are we living in a computer simulation?| Are we living in a computer simulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]

==Other==

==Feel free to add additional debate topics.==

To add a topic, edit this page, and enter a '#' followed by the topic title in double square brackets. Use a '|' to separate the link from the title.
 For example:
<nowiki># [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]</nowiki>
which will look like this:
# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]

Then you can click the link, and create the page when it isn't found.

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates| ]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-04-18T18:00:09Z

Hacker: /* Political debates */ Added Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==

# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Stem Cells: Why or why not]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia: 'το πνευμα ἁγιον'; how would you translate it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus|Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still preform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?|Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible|On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible...]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britian become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?|Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Keep Richard Around?|Should Richard Stay?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]

==Scientific debates==

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Do violent video games play a role in people on the edge of sanity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==

# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Major bias in conservapedia]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Communists at Conservapedia|Should known communists be banned from editing at Conservapedia??]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Should I remove the gross Spanish profanity passing itself off as translations in several articles?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Why do so many topical debates descend into embarassing personal attacks?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are we living in a computer simulation?| Are we living in a computer simulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]

# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]

==Other==

==Feel free to add additional debate topics.==

To add a topic, edit this page, and enter a '#' followed by the topic title in double square brackets. Use a '|' to separate the link from the title.
 For example:
<nowiki># [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]</nowiki>
which will look like this:
# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]

Then you can click the link, and create the page when it isn't found.

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates| ]]

Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?

2007-04-18T17:57:29Z

Hacker: New page: What the bloody… er, well, what kind of question is this? --~~~~

What the bloody… er, well, what kind of question is this? --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 13:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Aschlafly/Archive15

2007-04-18T00:25:07Z

Hacker: New page: == Welcome to Students! == Students or parents, please post any questions here: hey can i become an admin mr.schlafly? i catch alot of stuff and can only say something about it. i dont m...

== Welcome to Students! ==

Students or parents, please post any questions here:

hey can i become an admin mr.schlafly? i catch alot of stuff and can only say something about it. i dont mind though if you say no. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*I have had interaction with Will, Andy...he mistook me for a Vandal! He's a good sport, and very polite. Someone to keep in mind. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Nearly Headless Nick ==

Dear Aschlafly sir, I am the administrator who deleted the Conservapedia article on Wikipedia through a fair process called "Articles for Deletions" in the beginning; since then the article has been reinstated as it successfully cleared the conditions of inclusion on our website. I have already read the insightful discussions that the respectable members of this website have been having on my competitiveness for being an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I would be delighted to answer questions if you would like to interview me. Best wishes, --[[User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nearly Headless Nick]] 21:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

: Well, by all means welcome!

: The deletion process at Wikipedia was not "fair". The decision itself was without explanation, and followed much bullying on the talk page. Several people had spent substantial effort on the entry that was wasted by a click of the mouse at (the liberal) Wikipedia. The episode typified the reason for a "brain drain" at Wikipedia, as good work is tossed out at whim. That the decision was wrong was aptly illustrated by its reversal later, due to popular demand. Last time I checked the entry on Conservapedia it was very biased against us, making statements that lacked verification and, at times, adding false claims simply designed to embarrass. Not that I blame you for that, of course.

: By the way, don't you think your user id is, shall we say, a bit silly for an encyclopedia editor? Please don't take that personally, but would you really expect a teacher (as I am) to cite your work? Regardless, all the best to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Andy, how is the Conservapedia article at WP not good? I've been active there, rooting out bias! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, riigggghhhtt! Has it been completely changed, lately, David? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Specific example of bias pl0x? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Ahhh, no answer then? That's ok. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hoji, I appreciate your efforts, but the Wikipedia entry on Conservapedia is filled with falsehoods, distortions, unsupported claims and an overall liberal bias. Honestly, I don't know where to begin, as I saw perhaps 10 glaring defects in my read of it just now. OK, I'll mention this: there is no "concern" about our (more advantageous) copyright policy and the only support for this was ... Jimmy Wales! Well, there's an unbiased copyright expert on this topic! The whole Richard incident is a distortion that lacks any authoritative site also. The criticism section is based on the phony claim that "social conservative" Tom Flanagan doesn't like our site. I could go on and on but I won't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Alas, the first question you ask me, is the most difficult to answer. Why did I chose this username? I happened to be a happy young man, who used his own name as an identification in the sublime world of Wiki, and I was rudely brought down to Earth when a so-called friend of mine, gave my folks the [[Special:Contributions/Anirudhsbh]] link, which provided them each and every detail of my stint on Wikipedia. I decided on a whim that I should get my username changed to something which they could never guess; and then this weird idea flashed to my mind, coupled with the fact that EssJay, a former bureaucrat was available on IRC at the same time. I asked him to change it and he immediately complied. And hence I came to be known as Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. I have been the derision of all the Harry Potter and Wikipedia jokes combined since then; and I never thought about changing it. Why? Because it was weird, and funny, and it made everyone laugh. Did it make me seem juvenile, a little bit, yes. But, let me assure you, dear sir, I am a 20-year-old law student from [[Gandhinagar]], India. As long as people remembered me and liked me, I felt no need to change it; and I really won't, even if it reflects badly on my maturity *shrug*. I edit Wikipedia for pleasure, and derive no monetary gain out of it. And this "weird" username also provides me cover from real-life stalkers, atleast temporarily. For now, the cover has been "blown" a lot of times already, my real name, home mailing address have been posted mercilessly by a stalker who somehow acquired those details.

:::: I certainly didn't expect hundreds of words in response to my comment about your assumed (phony) name. It strikes me as anti-intellectual, which seems out of place in a serious encyclopedia. But perhaps Wikipedia is not really a serious encyclopedia after all. At any rate, the name issue is the least important concern.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As for the deletion, I will try to explain the rationale here. This is the link to the discussion page where the deletion of the article was discussed – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservapedia]. This is the link to the version of the page, which was in existence at the time of the running of the AfD – [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=95871283]

:::Most of the users on the page agreed that there were no multiple, secondary (independent), reliable sources were not present to establish the notability of the article, which is the prime criterion of inclusion on Wikipedia as per our notability guidelines WP:N, WP:WEB. There were no ''secondary'', i.e. ''reputable'' and ''non-trivial'' sources outside of Conservapedia available to establish its notability at that period of time. Comments like these – ''The demand to delete "conservapedia" is a demand for a censorship.'' were frankly seen as straw man arguments. Google, at that particular point in time, did not provide sources outside of Conservapedia, or Wikipedia, where the article was in existence. Also, the information that one of the creators of the Conservapedia was involved in the creation and editing of the article raised concerns about WP:COI - Conflict of Interest. Wikipedia does not allow employees and those who are closely related to those projects so as to uphold "Neutrality" - one of the basic five pillars on which Wikipedia stands. And I will repeat again, we require a multiple number of non-trivial sources from reputable secondary sources. One cannot blog about himself on his blog and then claim notability by linking his own article to the pages of his blog. I have tried my best to achieve clarity here. Is there anything else I could help you with? --[[User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nearly Headless Nick]] 22:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: But the lengthly description of the "Richard" incident does exactly that in Wikipedia's current entry: it cites the person's own blog as "authority" for his criticism of Conservapedia. So Wikipedia's rules are simply something to enforce selectively to suit the biases of the editors.

:::: The claim that the "creators of the Conservapedia was involved in the creation" of the entry at Wikipedia is completely new to me, and illustrates why it's important for a reason to be given for deletion. I had no involvement in the entry's creation, and doubt the truth of the claim. By relying on a biased, unsubstantiated claim, the decision itself was unjustified.

:::: The entry today about Conservapedia is riddled with falsehoods and bias. Is that going to be fixed? I doubt it given the liberal bias on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hm. Anti-intellectual. That's a point of view though. JK Rowling's raking in tonnes of pounds, is she not? She is richer than the Queen. Obviously, the thesis I write for Wikipedia are not going to gain my any recognitions, I would be attributed to them, ofcourse, but they are entirely worthless in academia. Writing for a national law journal pays more, even though it is extremely difficult to get one's research published in there.
:::::On articles - We try to present all the viewpoints in an article by providing all the sources we can get. You are welcome to edit and fix the article.
:::::(Ref. to the previous discussions about me in the archives) I was born a Hindu, so I do not have to answer why I chose a character from a so-called "anti-Christian" book to my religious gurus (I have none actually, I am agnostic!) Warm regards, --[[User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nearly Headless Nick]] 03:39, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Your assumed name is a minor issue, but I clearly stated that my objection to the name is that it is anti-intellectual. Do we really need an anti-intellectual encyclopedia? How about an anti-intellectual school next, where the teachers have names like "Nearly Headless Nick" and "The Ostrich" (see Hartford story [http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/hc-pediareality.artapr12,0,5272073.story here])?

:::::: You left out something in your invitation to "edit and fix the article." You didn't mention that Wikipedia editors hostile to conservative principles will edit, revert or delete corrections. I think all of my factual edits on a variety of Wikipedia entries have been deleted due to its editor bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, levity is good in all things. Surely you're not against fun. As a Harry Potter fan, I appreciate your user name, Nick. I would also like to join in saying that having factual edits deleted because of administrative bias is bad. Of course, I pass no judgment on the merits of your case, Andy. My experience is limited to this site. And, I think it's more anti-intellectual to censor [[user:Palmd001|experts]] from using their expertise.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

: The "joke" is getting a little old, don't you think? Who's kidding whom here. Wikipedia is part of an anti-intellectual movement, and the mockery-by-name is a small part of that effort. It's not just "Nearly Headless Nick," it's also "The Ostrich" (as observed by the Hartford Courant [http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/hc-pediareality.artapr12,0,5272073.story here]) and many other examples. Just imagine a school pretending to be a house of learning, but where the teachers call themselves "Mickey Mouse" and "Donald Duck."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:: This ad hominem argument is drawing away from the point of the discussion. And Andy, just curious, how do can you say "Wikipedia is part of an anti-intellectual movement" (assuming you mean because common people can edit it), without being hypocritical (the same is true of CP)? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, I don't think it's "ad hominem" to criticize certain ''fake'' names. But that aside, Wikipedia editors share an agenda that is concealed and denied. Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia has no hidden agenda. So hypocrisy, though a favored liberal epithet, does not apply to Conservapedia at all.

::: By the way, Wikipedia is anti-intellectual in ideology, not simply because "common people can edit it." In fact, most common people ''cannot'' have their edits respected on Wikipedia, because most common people accept the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, I was just trying to point out that the name criticism was drawing away from the point of the discussion. I also laugh at you calling "hypocrisy" a "favored liberal epithet", as it is thrown around often by both sides.
:::: And as for Wikipedia being biased; of course it is. But in respecting fact, they rationally see science as the basis for fact, and are creating a materialistic, natural encyclopedia, which Conservapedia should be ''complimenting'', not ''fighting'', by presenting a YEC viewpoint (because that's what Conservapedia is now). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: As a Christian, I see Jesus, not science, as being the basis for fact ("I am the way, the truth, and the life"). That's not to knock the usefulness of science, by the way. And did you mean "complimenting" or "complementing"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:I have to ask, where does all this hate against Wikipedia come from? Sure, they dont offer solely christian/american view of things, its an encyclopedia searched and used by millions of people of diffrent fates and nationalityes. And in all honesty, i have to say that while it might not be perfect it manages quite well on its task to maintain neutral point of view. There are ofc some articles with questionable content. with 1 700 000 articles on english and edited by numerous users there is bound to be some that have bias or factual errors. But tell me, would you think an muslim from Saudi Arabia or hindu from India would concider Concervapedia as more neutral and less biased than Wikipedia? Or do you think anyone exept conservative american christian would see it that way? (okey, mayby some other christian conservatives around the world) The point being, that i find your hatered towards wikipedia bit unfound when this site really isnt any better. Oh, and personally i wouldnt find anything wrong on being taught by a professor named Mickey Mouse or anything else, as long as the things he is teaching arent "anti-intellectual" -- [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't "hate" Wikipedia, but ideological movements do have consequences. Read up on the Cultural Revolution in China if you doubt that. Wikipedia is a distinct ideological movement that is very liberal, anti-Christian, anti-American and anti-intellectual. Students are misled by its pervasive bias, which many Wikipedia editors pretend does not exist. I don't care how many entries it has (most of which are silly), or how many visitors it has (many of whom would be better off consulting a real encyclopedia). In fact, the greater its usage, the greater the need to expose what it really is.

:: I believe there is a brain drain from Wikipedia that is making it the Kool-Aid or MTV of the internet. People are free to drinks as much Kool-Aid as they like, but many end up wanting something better. Welcome to Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Donut ==

Could you see the edits to [[donut]] and [[Berliner Pfannkuchen]]? An appeal has been made to the panel. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

: I got a chuckle out of your dispute with Teresita. Does a donut need to have a hole? Personally, I don't think so, but who am I to say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==List suggestion==
[[User:Sterile]] made a minor complaint on the Commandments talk page that the term "family friendly" was too vague, as it did not specifically identify what it is that should not be posted on Conservapedia (such as sexually-related stuff), and I suggested a posted listing of things that is to be avoided. Do you think such a list is needed? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: I doubt a list is necessary. Do parents have a "list" when making these determinations? We want simple, concise rules, shorter than the Ten Commandments themselves.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:56, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[Robert E. Lee]]==
This article can now be added to the pile. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: It's magnificent!!!!! Truly a work of history. I was telling my class of students about it this afternoon, and I'll add it to the front page tonight. Very well done. God bless you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do have a problem sometimes with minor spelling...which I've seen you correct. I would call that teamwork! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I just added an "assessment" blurb at the bottom of the article...probably in time. It might need more there, but that's just me. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:56, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

: It's a masterpiece. It doesn't need anything more, though feel free to continue to add to it. Thanks for such a brilliant work!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

One of the things you might like to teach in your classes is trivia about various subjects, and the additional pictures I posted for this article could result in a nice round of discussions. If you'll notice on Lee in his uniform, he is always wearing the stars of a colonel in the Confederacy; the pic of Stonewall shows the added wreath of a general; Lee wouldn't over-do it, which is indicative of his humility, but on the flip-side, no one would dare question his authority. This authority was extended to President Jefferson Davis, who was thrown off the battlefield by Lee during one of the Seven Days battles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:30, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed Block Policy ==

There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Seems very popular. Between you and Benjamin we've gotten a lot of great organizational suggestions in the past couple of days.

:What you suggested seems so close to what I've been doing (or 'thought' I was doing) that I wonder if you are a sockpuppet of me! :-)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

== Request Unprotection ==

Dear Andy,

We request unprotection of the following pages:

*[[User:RightWolf2]]
*[[User_Talk:RightWolf2]]

I also request de-sysop and mandatory blocking of users [[User:TK]] and [[User:Hojimachong]] for a period of three days as an administrative sanction for the original talk page baiting and harassment conduct that gave us cause to leave your site in the first place. We will resume editing when you have instrumented the aforementioned administrative punishments to these two users. Please do not allow teenagers and twenty year olds to hold you hostage or this site. You need to send a message that harassment of mature editors won't be tolerated. Thanks. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, RightWolf2, pages of blocked users are locked to protect them against vandalism. Why would someone want access to the pages of a blocked user? And FYI, thanks for the compliment, however I haven't seen 50 in a while now. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::If you wish to make these requests,
::*Show some examples of "talk page baiting"
::*Prove that you are a "mature editor", as you imply you are.
::--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:37, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*'''Is this "user" still blocked?''' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Checking the "User_Contributions" and Selecting the "block logs" at the top reveals this:
::18:51, 21 March 2007 TimSvendsen (Talk | contribs) unblocked [[User:RightWolf2]] (contribs)
::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 21:06, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Rob. Yes, I have been reminded that the user posted he was quitting, and requested that his pages be locked. I blocked him for other actions, and of course, in another case of "elite" actions, another Sysop (CPAdmin1/Tim) reversed my block in less than an hour, without discussion or notice. More needless arguing brought on by the failure of people who claim to be "concerned" about users and their "rights" refusing to communicate, and instead taking unilateral action. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:33, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:The general unpleasantness of this dialogue is virtually identical to what is typically seen on Wikipedia. People take these discussions far too seriously. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:50, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Andy Schalfly Website ==

The website has been disabled. It will remain down as a token of good faith. I apologize for any disruption in order to get my message accross. I wanted you to understand a few things. One of them being that unlike these trolls on your site, I am an expert in MediaWiki technology and computer science in general. I am also a person with nearly limitless financial resources. Forgiveness goes both ways, BTW. Your turn ....

: I try to forgive people every day, and try not to hold grudges. I have also told you who I am. Who are you, and whom do you represent (i.e., your "limitless financial resources")? Surely you would agree that question is fair.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I accept your apology. I ask your forgiveness for my interactions here. I hope we are both wiser from the experience. The question is fair, but anonymous speakers have their rights too. I liked your blackmail article, however, asking someone to comply with their perceptions of privacy laws does not quite fit the elements of proof. At this point, we can part friends. I wish you the very best of luck with your project. Please setup a donations section and I will consider donating to your project. Please consider fixing checkuser. Thanks. :-)

:: Fair enough. I'm glad to end this dispute. All the best to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Userboxes==
What do you think about the use of [[Conservapedia talk:Userboxes|Userboxes]]? I know these are popular on Wikipedia and I just wanted your opinion. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 19:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

: A person's user page is his castle here, so the boxes are fine with me as long as they remain confined to a person's own "turf", and as long as they are clean. Do you have a view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You should add some to your page, Andy! FYI, I will be less active this week (midterms). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:13, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yep, I may take you up on that, Hoji. As to your midterms, maybe in a few months Conservapedia will have enough information to help college students prepare here. However, even then most students may be not be learning what we have here! Ha ha ha. Lord willing we may grow into a full school ourselves one day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::I personally like the userboxes. Some of them are quite humorous {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:Cows_at_E3.jpg‎ |45px]] |info=<center>This user thinks cows are tasty</center>}}
::[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 20:31, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I find this userbox to be offensive and propose it for deletion. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 20:14, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
{{User warmhell}}

: I don't want to go down the road of censoring comments. We block users who we observe cross the line, rather than try to read and filter everything that is said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, that's fine. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 20:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Well-l-l...maybe I'm a stick-in-the-mud. But...well, I don't have a quarrel with a userbox that states a definite ideological position. But some of those userboxes are ''not'' clean. Body parts, for example. I know that a user's page is his castle, but the trouble is that the user page is actually the front elevation as you pass down the street, and if somebody's got a box that isn't clean on his page, that's a...what do you call it in law? I seem to recall the phrase [[public nuisance]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:If it falls under obscenity, then it is already covered elsewhere --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 20:49, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:I wouldn't mind being labelled with that user box warmhell. I find it quite amusing. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 20:44, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::How sad. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for pointing that out CPAdmin1. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== A line that nobody should cross ==

Mr Schlafly, I have been enjoying participation in this site of yours, and though I do not share your ideology, I respect what you are trying to achieve. However, I did take offence to the comment made by [[User:CoulterMan|CoulterMan]] which was on an edit of his to the page on Canada. He referred to a section I added as a "nazi rant". I am sure as an academic you understand that language of that nature is completely uncalled for, and unnecessary. Would you be so kind as to deal with that user, or have somebody deal with him. I can accept being called a great number of things, especially surrounding my religion or sexual orientation, but something that carries that sort of implication is crossing the line. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 20:48, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I blocked him for the edit on your user page --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 20:57, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*Do we have a rule allowing blocks for that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:01, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::CoulterMan and I had it out because he was writing editorials on Canada, and I then went and sourced a huge chunk of information he copied to his user page. He accused me of vandalism for making this large portion of his user page a block quote, and adding a link to the original page on another Wiki. I suppose I could have acted more maturely, but under the circumstances, I have to accept part of the blame for fueling the fire. If I too should be blocked for that, then so be it. But, I don't care about what he wrote on my user page, it was the implication that I am a Nazi that offended me. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 21:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The block was appropriate, but the duration (2 weeks) without warning seems excessive to me. However, I don't think Sysops should waste lots of time second-guessing each others' blocks. Our time is better spent building the encyclopedia. The procedure should be to suggest to the Sysop who did the blocking to shorten or lengthen it. Almost always the Sysop who did the blocking reconsiders.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I retract my statement above. That block was inappropriate. A 30-second review of CoulterMan's edits show some valuable contributions. It was a mistake not to take that into consideration. He should have been warned for the "nazi" comment, which is used often even in polite discourse in the United States (e.g., Rush Limbaugh), rather than blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Did you see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TrueGrit&diff=prev&oldid=101782| this] edit which is clear vandalism? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:30, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That's own user page. One can't vandalize his own user page, any more than someone can vandalize his own home. Here (unlike Wikipedia), a man's user page is his castle. See [[Differences with Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: AHA! Andy, I get it now! I think that you've been confusing the user talk page with the user page! Indeed, User page vandalism is a blockable offense at Wikipedia. Userpages are like "profiles" on MySpace or Facebook, and user talk pages are like email addresses. Just on the off-chance you might be confused :/. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::That's TrueGrit's user page and it was vandalized by CoulterMan. And valuable edits don't always mean a good editor, think about Richard or BORF. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 22:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, Andy knows the difference. He has posted that both pages are the User's "Castle". The fact that we have the main "finger-wagger" Sysop here posting that someone should be banned for doing what they like with their own page, without pornography or cursing is troubling. Maybe if everyone agreed to communicate with the whole group, more of these needless eruptions could be avoided? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Hoji, your comment doesn't change my view. Wikipedia acts like everything is government property, like its complex copyright license. It thinks someone's own user page is like government property too! Not us. Users' pages are their castles. Thank God for principles of private property.

:: However, I think ColinR is now suggesting that CoulterMan vandalized someone else's user page. That would be a serious infraction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ooops, my mistake. I see that the above link was to the vandalizing of someone else's user page. All my arguments now go in the direction opposite to my conclusion!!!! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Would you be opposed to the reblocking of [[User:CoulterMan|CoulterMan]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm still trying to argue against the locking of user talk pages, as they are ''not'' part of a users userspace, are not intended to be, and should not be locked; how else is someone supposed to contact [[User talk:Conservative|this user]]? It makes no sense. It's been locked for 11 days, with a summary of "AmesG pestering me". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:07, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Good point, Hoji.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*I think Hoji is confused. No one's user page is ever locked, except by them. I started locking the pages of users who had been blocked to head off vandalism, and socks using them to foment trouble. Surely no one objects to that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:15, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hoji said "user talk pages", not "user pages". And there are several user talk pages locked (yours included), which makes communication more difficult. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 23:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Colin, can you post the diffs? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TrueGrit&diff=prev&oldid=101782| Here] is the diff. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:FYI [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User%3ACoulterMan&diff=90664&oldid=88972| Here] is the "vandalism" by [[User:TrueGrit| TrueGrit]] on [[User:CoulterMan|CoulterMan]]'s user page. It was formatting. IMO, if it's on a USER page it's sacrosanct, they don't want it formatted, that's up to them. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

::*I agree with you Rob. But since the postulation of the idea of a users page being his "Castle" was only agreed to/posted here by Andy within the past two weeks, one isn't "right" or fair, to demand someone be blocked for formatting. This is yet another matter of mis-communication, by a Sysop who has never wanted any communication, and most of his actions as a Sysop have been unilateral ones, reversing another's actions on his own, without asking or informing. What the problem is here, as in many places, is people not communicating, directly with each other, and "reading into" a persons actions all kinds of evil and bad motives for them. They are in essence tried and convicted without anyone ever asking for their reasoning in doing whatever they did. We all need to insist on people being allowed to give everyone the benefit of their thinking before assuming the worst. Especially another member of the small number of Sysops. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Are you refering to me? what did I do now? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 00:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

You wanted to block someone for "vandalism". You posted you did block them. It was formatting! Instead of messaging the perp, you bring it here, embarass people, and make them look bad! We didn't even consider user/talk pages as a "castle" until a week or so ago. Maybe you need to stop throwing rocks at me, and others, until your own glass house is repaired. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:02, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TrueGrit&diff=prev&oldid=101782|edit which was blocked for]] wasn't formatting, TK; it was made on April 9th. As far back as March 29th, [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive11|Andy called user's talk pages their 'castle']]. Technically speaking, that's immaterial since this wasn't a user's talk page, but a user page, but surely nobody is going to claim that a user talk page is _more_ protected than an actual user page? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 02:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, why have some complained about blocking anyone, for anything not in the Commandments? To me, User and User Talk pages should be treated the same. It is the users castle, as Andy said. But I hardly think doing formatting changes is serious enough infringement to be blocked for without warning. And deleting stuff, as Ames, Myk have argued with me, still isn't reason enough because things can be reverted. You guys can't have it both ways. If you want warnings, before blocking, it has to apply equally to everyone. Was Coulterman given a warning, before being blocked or not? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: IT WAS NOT A FORMATTING CHANGE. Did you follow the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TrueGrit&diff=prev&oldid=101782 link]? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 03:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, and I clearly said, ''even if editing'', a warning should preceed a blocking. What he added wasn't obscene, or deleting anything. While I consider it serious, I would not instantly block someone for it. Obviously another Sysop had sense and removed the block. Do you argue with that common courtesy? Or are you calling for blood based on the user's idealogy? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I have no dog in this fight other than trying to get you to stop saying untrue things. If you understand it wasn't just formatting, why do you keep saying things like "I hardly think doing formatting changes is serious enough infringement to be blocked for without warning" and "Tonight he blocked a user for ''formatting'' another users page,"? The first step to dealing with differences of opinion is agreeing on what the facts are. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 03:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*Another step is reading what I said fullly. Obviously the formatting comment was a mistep of mine, because I go on to say ''"even if something was deleted.....". '' Taken in context, and without you assuming bad faith to others, deletion would be more serious than what he added, and even then I think a warning more appropriate than blocking. I am happy Andy and MountainDew agreed. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:55, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Whatever, TK. Are you going to correct the other places you've said things like "Tonight he blocked a user for ''formatting'' another users page,"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 04:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*Are you really this spiteful a creature, Jtl? Why does this place attract mean spirits to it? I was going by Cracker's statement, which is usually correct. And I think an argument could be made that adding that headline was indeed, formatting. It certainly was "vandalism" in a real sense. Now, please post some nasty/flip/snide remark, and have the last word. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: If it makes you feel better to think I'm spiteful, that's fine with me. You misunderstood Cracker's statement: ''FYI Here is the "vandalism" by TrueGrit on CoulterMan's user page. It was formatting.''. Read that carefully: he was linking to something ''TrueGrit'' did on ''CoulterMan'''s page, that CoulterMan considered vandalism. ''That'' edit was formatting, but isn't the one that was banned over. CoulterMan then edited TrueGrit's userpage, adding a large headline accusing TrueGrit of being a vandal. ''That'' is the edit that was banned over. I don't know how to say this that won't sound snide, and I'm sorry for that, but I really am trying to be helpful: you need to slow down and read what people say. I can't count how many dust-ups have been caused by you misinterpreting or misunderstanding someone else's words. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 04:21, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The dust-ups come from mean spirited people like you. You keep ignoring what I actually said, and concentrating on formatting. I also said, even it it had been DELETING, it would still merit a warning first. Adding a headline is not heinous. Get over it. He isn't banned now, and was, unfairly, for about an hour. Just let it go. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:25, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Huh? How am I concentrating on formatting? Everything I've said has been about your words. Here are some more of your words that come to mind -- these I think actually have some accuracy, although presumably not quite how you intended: "What the problem is here, as in many places, is people not communicating, directly with each other, and "reading into" a persons actions all kinds of evil and bad motives for them." --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 04:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Jimmy Carter==

Yeah, I've heard about the UFO claim. I actually have a book that lists interesting facts about the personal lives of all of the US presidents, and it discusses that. I actually grew up being told by my mother that Carter was one of the best presidents ever, and I didn't learn the truth until I started reading about history for myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm astonished I never knew that. And I am a huge critic of the scientific embrace of "life in outer space." See, e.g., Carl Sagan. We need an entry on that liberal, if we don't have one yet. In fact, this life in outer space stuff should be a "liberal falsehood" of the day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Amen to that. In fact I discovered last week when reading some of ''Hitler's Table Talk'', Hitler believed in extraterrestrial life on other planets. I had no idea these whacked ideas went back to the 1940s and probably earlier. I could find the quote again if needed or your interested. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:17, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Maybe this should be developed as an essay. I'll start one know just to get it going. I would like to post this on the front page as a liberal falsehood. So far we have three: Hitler, Carter and Carl Sagan. I hope that grouping is not too inflammatory!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

As long as we make it clear that we're not actually comparing Carter to Hitler. I don't think that should be hard, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::But you are calling Hitler a "liberal"? LOL. BTW, I think you can add Ronald Reagan [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhUmCthFK0k] and Newt Gingrich [http://www.thespacereview.com/article/623/1] to the list of wacky Liberals who believe in aliens. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 04:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::RobS might have seen it, but I did read once, Hitler had written a letter to someone, where he noted that these "advanced societies" were as they were because they had kept their race "pure". How whacked is that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to admit that when I was in high school, I was an extraordinarily liberal person. I would even go online and slander conservatives and argue them. I worked at a library then and read a lot of magazines and books about politics, and I read both sides' arguments. Eventually, I saw the light and was won over. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

: MountainDew, I bet we've all gone through similar experiences. We all went to high school, read the same books, learned from similar teachers, etc., etc. It's a liberal culture. I'm now convinced that at least half of what I learned in school was false. I question everything that I use to think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Another thing people don't know is the connection between [[racism]] and [[Eugenics]], and how eugenics led to forced sterilizations and (even) [[the Holocaust]].

:Liberals don't like to have it mentioned (it was censored from Wikipedia), but Eugenics also figures in [[radical Environmentalism]], the [[DDT ban]], and so on. I'll be writing about these things in the near future, although not 14 hours a day of course. My time may be severely limited after next week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Yep, I've done a lot of reading on those topics in the past few years. You're quite right, although I can't confirm the radical environmentalism part of it. The connection between that and eugenics is new to me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::AmesG keeps asking about the Darwinism/Nazism connection, but I've been too busy. ''Hitler's Table Talk'' is loaded with it. Here's one, Conversation of 10th of October 1941 Midday:
::::"war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to him who conquers them....The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:53, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::Here's the cite, ''Hitler's Table Talk'', Conversation of 14th of October 1941 Midday:
:::"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, '''when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours''', then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.
::I'll get complete cite with page number tomorrow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here's the Carter docs. [http://www.presidentialufo.com/carter_ufo_report.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow. I hope this is legit, because I'm going to put it on the front page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*Even more amazing, people, to this day, insist Hitler was right-wing. Another left-wing smear. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's the full cite to the Hitler quote about life on other planets,
*''Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-44;'' Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, Introduction by H. R. Trevor-Roper, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1973, 2nd ed., p. 60. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== User:CoulterMan ==

Can I reblock him now that you understand that he vandalized a different user's userpage? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 00:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

: I wouldn't without first reviewing his overall edits and the context of his edit war. I looked at his overall edits and he has contributed a lot to this site. Also, blocks based on heated ideological disputes should only be long enough to cool off, such as one day. It doesn't make sense to block a serious contributor 2 months for getting into a heated argument.

: You might check with MountainDew for a third opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:05, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*I thought Tim was one of those who have previously posted, that people should get a warning? There wasn't any big damage done, and he was already blocked for an hour. I think all that has been posted on this page should surely satisfy even the most blood thirsty. If not, maybe CPAdmin1 can post a "stern" reprimand on his page. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
sir, am i allowed to copy an article that i contributed to wikipedia?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 01:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, you can always copy your '''own''' work. If the copy includes edits by others, then it becomes necessary to credit the other editors, as done at the bottom of this entry [[Joseph McCarthy]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you

==Question==

Just wanted to know if you received my letter and if you wish to respond. Thanks, PAL.

: No, I haven't received it. Can you email it to me at my account at aol? I did appreciate your entry on the [[Hepatitis B vaccine]] and how it increases the risk of MS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::Um, that was NOT my version. Sorry.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:21, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Congratulation ==

Congratulations Andy Schlafy.

This is a great idea.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Upload File Broken ==

I tried uploading several images to Conservapedia but it isn't working. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 22:14, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

: Please keep trying. We seem to have sporadic problems with uploading images.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Two Concerns - Conservative, and the Main Page ==

First things first, Andy - [[user:Conservative|that guy]] has once again crossed an editorial line. He has submitted a page ([[macroevolution]]) to the panel, which is of course permitted. He has then protected the page, which is also permitted. However, he then removed everything with which he personally disagreed, on the page. I thought that pages submitted to the panel were sent in their current state. That's how it worked with [[Evolution]], and we all played by the rules. Now, I want to make sure that [[user:Conservative|Conservative]] plays by the rules. Will you please see to it? Also, I would like a cite for the allegations on the main page, about how the "abortion lobby" is forcibly stalling stem cell research on more successful, non-embryonic lines. In fact, I'd like a cite about how non-embryonic lines are more successful. Thanks.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::::You never showed me "the rule" AmesG. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:I would like to engage you in debate on the [[Adult stem cells]] issue. However, in the meantime, I have submitted it to the Panel. Please abstain from making substance-edits in the interim between now and their decision.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, maybe medication would help? I am truly concerned. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:14, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::TK, personal remarks are not appreciated, and have gotten me banned in the past. Why are you still here?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, joking aside, I am concerned that you persist with such strongly one-sided, preconceived views. We're not here to make you feel better about your predetermined views. That's not our goal. Expect to learn things on this site that will challenge your views. Please be more open-minded in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, joking aside, I am concerned that you persist with such strongly one-sided, preconceived views that you fail to back up with any material at all. Such a failure to engage in basic encyclopedic editing is a failure of this site, and of your own ideology. The only thing I have learned thus far on this site is that, when challenged, creationists are not strong enough to step up to the plate and debate their ideas - rather, they run and hide with whatever powers they have at their disposal (blocks, et al). I am deeply saddened by this - I had hoped to learn something of your viewpoints, but instead, I have only learned of their weakness.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Where did Andy go? He seems to have gone quiet all of a sudden (again). It never ceases to amaze me how he can behave in such a hypocritical manner. He says one thing and does just the opposite. I particularly like: "We're not here to make you feel better about your predetermined views". Does the man have absolutely no sense of irony? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Horace, it is Sunday and not to appear self-righteous, but it doesn't hurt to spend a little time in prayer. It's healthy, too. But I'm back online now.

:: I have an open mind about everything and my views change a little every day I'm on this site. I'm serious. Ames, and perhaps yourself, seem determined to reinforce your predetermined views. That's not going to happen from this site. This site is to challenge all of us, you and Ames also, about what we were taught and what we think. Try it. You'll thank others here if you do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Do you know what would demonstrate your open mind more than anything? Why don't you make me a sysop? I'm serious. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Oop... He's gone again. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I maintain an open mind. I used to be an atheist, actually, but I consider myself more agnostic, now. That's a pretty big change. The fact is, though, that mired in the poor reasoning of most of the "controversial" articles as I am, I have yet to see *anything* to change my mind. Example - the [[evolution]] page. No-one who looks beyond the surface (but I guess literalism doesn't encourage that) could fail to see the gaping errors in your anti-evolution attacks.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Site Issue ==

The site works fine for me, but I've reported problems by others to the hosting company and it is already processing this trouble ticket.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you I've been having some strange stuff going on-lately when I've been trying to edit it logs me out instead. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Problem fixed. The host moved a partition. Thanks for your patience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Whatever was done also seemed to have fixed my problem uploading pictures that I've had for a very long time. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:50, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sysop material ==

Dear Andy,

Please read this eloquent pro-life material: http://prolifeprologic.townhall.com/ It was written by the person who has the discussion page of: [[User talk:Runeglia]]. I am guessing he is a conservative pro-lifer soon to be editor of Conservapedia. You might consider asking him if he wants to be a Sysop and watch his edits. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Thanks==

That's what I get for 4 years of chess.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah, btw, I'm still working on it, in case you wanna feature it or something.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:: A feature on chess is a great idea! I'll add that to my list for this week, after you've had some more time to improve it. The [[Titanic]] is the feature for tomorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Cities and sizes ==

Andy, I would like to know how big a city needs to be to warrant an entry. I would suggest the city needs to have either:
*A population of 250,000 in the city proper/metro. area
*Significant historical importance ([[Persepolis]], [[Carthage]], etc.)
Tell me what you think. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Having grown up in a small town, I'd hate to see population as the criterion. Let's let everything in that meets our [[rules]] and we can always trim back later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks, Andy and Conservative :P --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== question ==

How do you feel about edit such as this: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&diff=108019&oldid=100436 How do you want situations like this handled? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::Forget I even asked. I saw his next edit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::Right. But the edit you questioned violates our [[rules]] that entries be verifiable, and you were right to change it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:43, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Should i delete fornication and sodomy? Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 01:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That's a great idea, Geo! Thanks for enforcing our [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I deleted Fornication. Should I also delete Sodomy? Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 02:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::According to commandment 3, you should delete [[Sodomy]] and [[Homosexuality]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Protected deleted pages ==

Andy, I found a way to make sure that the articles in "Category:Protected deleted pages" don't show up when you click "random page";all of the pages in that category should redirect to a single page, with the current <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Deletedpage|Deletedpage]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> on it; redirects do not show up when "random page" is clicked on. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Wow, that's fantastic, Hoji! Thanks!!! I'll change over some of the pages now to redirects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mohammad ==

You might want to take a look at this, decide policy. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Image_talk:Mahommed.jpg]]

: Deleted that particular image because the source of file not disclosed; copyright issues; adds nothing to the article about Mohammed. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Reuploaded as [Image:Maome.jpg], author, copyright, and source disclosed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Triple J ==

: By the way, TK, I was just on Stirling Addison's show on Australia radio: "Restoring the Balance" [http://abc.net.au/triplej/restoringthebalance] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::I will pray for a whole night's sleep for you! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Thanks for that! I need it indeed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The audio for Sunday's show there isn't up on the site yet, but I assume it will be soon. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Unfortunately, there was some static on the line when I spoke due to a storm here. I need to get Skype to do these interviews over the internet, which might result in clearer transmission. :-( --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Arrrgh! I knew I'd forget to listen (I was watching CSI with my better half). Oh well, at least they <s>(will)</s> have it on the web-site. How did it go? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::It is now on-line. Try http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/restoringthebalance/mod_real/restoring.ram (Real player) or http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/restoringthebalance/mod_windows/restoring.asx (Windows player), or go to http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/restoringthebalance/ and click either "REAL" or "WINDOWS" under "Listen : stream last program" in the left column. I'll shortly post how far into the program Andy comes on. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: It starts at time mark 34:33 and goes to 41:00. Note that the program is a ''pretend'' right-wing (conservative) program on a radio station that is actually very left-wing (liberal). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: NOTE: The direct links above will only be valid for one week. The indirect link will probably be valid for about three weeks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Thanks much, Philip. I knew it was satire and expected the worst. But any time there is publicity, there is always a good chance of exposing someone to conservative ideas they have never heard before. Conservative ideas are censored in schools, mainstream media and Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Impersonator==
Got a guy who keeps trying to make sysop similar names. Can you IP ban him?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, let me take a look now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::I don't think it took. He may have a static IP.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: It's fairly easy to block the entire group of IP addresses. It's easier for us to block than it is for him to establish a new account. It's his loss because these blocks are infinite.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::He's just replacing links with links to a ipod scam site or something of that nature. Its broken anyway, so jokes on him.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: His last attempt, which was easily blocked, revealed his ISP location, so now we can file a complaint.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Mkay, sounds good to me. I'm taking a nap, I've been up all night, haha. Talk to you later Andy.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Thanks much. The new user who just registered is legitimate, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::what exactly is his real ip?--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 08:58, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::As an experienced programmer/analyst, I recommend against discussing security strategy in public like this. How about using private email? Or instant messaging? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

what do you mean by his last attempt was it the time he impersonated jimbowales?--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 09:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== RFA ==

I suggest that a page, under the title of [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship]] be created to provide a centralized location for users to requests varying levels of administrator permissions. If you don't object, I'll go ahead with this. Thanks! --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 09:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:I beleive there is already such a page, Hacker. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::You mean [[Talk:Admin]]? First of all, it's in the wrong namespace. Secondly, it's defunct. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 09:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Gee, I wonder if it was always defunct and in the "wrong" namespace, or someone made it so? On edge this morning, Hacker? I just remembered seeing it, and people posting there. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No one has ''touched'' [[Talk:Admin]] since… March 18 ( see [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Admin&action=history here]). That seems to make it defunct. And the article talk namespace is the wrong place for pages of this description. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 13:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

*I am trying to educate myself, so please forgive me for asking, but why is it in "the wrong place" and who decides? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::Which pages should go where is dictated at the code level. Pages about the administration of a MediaWiki wiki go in the Project: (Here Conservapedia:) namespace, and discussions about articles go in the article talk (Talk:) namespace. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 22:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So the page you say is defunct is in talk, not right? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, problem solved. I've moved the [[Talk:Admin]] page to [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship]], leaving the redirect, thus no red links and it's in the correct namespace now. If there's a problem with this, I can always move it back, though I don't know why anyone would want to do that. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, can you delete [[Talk:Admin]]? No cross-namespace redirects shoud exist. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 13:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== "what links here" on the front page is keeping people away from Conservapedia ==

Dear Mr. Schafly,

Here is a email I just got from a very conservative organization:

"It will be interesting to see how this pans out. i can imagine the
libs will attack this 24/7. not only that, i wouldn't want my children to
see this info. The "what links here" page is rated x as it is & is a link
right on the front page.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Whatlinkshere/Main_Page "

Can we get the "what links here" link off the front page? It is discouraging people to visit and edit our website.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:That's being addressed [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Protected_deleted_pages here]. If all of those pages are redirects, then they will not link to the main page. I'll go clean it up. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Hoji. I fix nearly a half-dozen starting from the bottom of the list. With your prior insight, that should also take those pages out of the "Random Page" selection also! It's a double win!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:35, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==User name==

I think I would like to change my user name. I've been called out by several members and accused of being a liberal troll on a few blogs because it's supposedly not serious enough. If I change it, could I have the new name sysopped? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Sure. I'll Sysop you immediately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::Registration is closed right now. I'll have to do it later. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Ah, sorry. It usually is closed Sundays, and I don't know how to open it. No big deal, and I don't have any objection to your user name, by the way. But others have changed theirs (including Sysops) so please feel free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

'crats can change usernames, with everything intact. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 19:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative organization also found misspelled word on the front page ==

Here is a second email from the same conservative organization:

"btw, it's "Trustworthy", not "Trusworthy" - main page, top-left"

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: I can't find this. Can you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:41, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes. The top left corner of every page, under the logo, it says "The Trusworhty Encyclopedia." [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Oh, I see. That's embarrassing. I use the old skin so I don't usually see that, except when I'm logged out. I can't believe I didn't notice that. Our webmaster will need to fix it, I suppose. I'll send him an email now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: MountainDew, I just realized that I can create a new account for you manually if you want this today. You can email your new id and password at my aol account (same user name for me).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I did that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: You're all set. I Sysop'd your new id. and de-Sysop'd MountainDew. You have a huge following here so you might want to let people know your new name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== High Quality Conservapedia Logo ==

Hi Andrew,
I am working on a high quality Conservapedia logo: 
[[Image:Conservapedia_Logo.png|thumb|200px]] 
I have an SVG version, but for some reason it won't upload correctly. 
Do you have any suggestions? 
[[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 16:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's nice! The flag is centered better too!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I like it. The font is more contemporary, and there isn't a red border around the flag. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::: ColinR, is this improved version from you? Conservapedia is a nonprofit, educational project and could you confirm that turn over all rights to your improvements in this designed logo to this project, even if for any reason there is a falling out with you in the future? Hate to make it sound that way but let's cover all our bases here. Thanks and God bless you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I made it but I wish to keep the rights on the picture. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 16:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::By the way, Andy, I reuploaded the Muhammad (PBUH) image as [Image:Maome.jpg], with copyright data, author, and sources disclosed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Thanks much Hoji but I still need to think about this further. Maybe all Sysops should consider and establish a policy about images of Muhammad.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: IMHO, we can try to respect Muslims, but showing images of Muhammad is akin to following their Shari'a rules. As a historical figure, Muhammad existed; there isn't a dispute over this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::I'm with Hoji on this one. We live in America, where we have religious freedom. That means no religion's laws are enforced upon us. I understand that Islam has a law that says no images of Muhammad can be made, but we do not have this law, and it is not forced upon us.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:57, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Well, you make good points, but the image is not authentic. Would an encyclopedia contain fictional images like this? I'm skeptical. I don't think we even have a painting of Jesus!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:04, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:: By the definition you imply you are using, then ''all'' paintings are "fictional". Could we include it in the article, and have the caption read "An artist's depiction of Muhammad"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: But the artist presumably never saw Muhammad, and probably wasn't even Muslim!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: Al-Biruni? You've got to be kidding! He is one of the most famous Islamic scholars ''ever''! And of course he didn't see Muhammad; nobody who did painted a picture, and Biruni lived in the 10th and 11th centuries AD. But that doesn't change the fact that Muhammad himself ''was'' a historical figure, ''existed'' as a person, and Al-Biruni used descriptions in approved ''hadith'' to compose this image. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: OK, I'm learning here. What's going on, then. Some Muslims oppose depictions of Muhammad but others allow it? The same is true for Jewish people with respect to depictions of people, I do know that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: The image is from a book entitled''Ta'rikh al-Hind'' ("Chronicles of India"), which Al-Biruni compiled. He included this image (which is historically Uzbek or Tajik) because he had found it somewhere else; This makes it the oldest known image which depicts Muhammad. And he did not ''create'' the image, which is the '''big''' no-no; he collected it from elsewhere. It would be hard to find sources to back these claims up, but I'd look for them if you requested. I have given you the name of the book, though, and hope you learned something! Did you know that Biruni also mathematician, physicist, philosopher, and astronomer? He proved that irrational numbers existed! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, so the plot thinks further. Al-Biruni didn't draw it after all. Most likely a Muslim did not draw it, so why would we cite it as authoritative? We wouldn't be citing Buddhist interpretations of the Bible, would we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: A Muslim most likely ''did'' draw it; it was probably Uzbek or Tajik, and in the century before Al-Biruni, these areas were under complete and utter Muslim control (The Abbasid Caliphate). And comparing this to a Buddhist depiction of the Bible is a bit extreme; Buddhists were a ways away from Christian influence, though the artist of the Maome image was probably a Muslim, or under heavy Muslim influence. I have another image if you don't like the Maome one. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: I don't know why you say a Muslim drew it. Apparently such depictions are against Islam. With the halos, the drawing looks distinctly Christian. The bottom line is that is not authentic, and it would be misleading to include it an entry on Muhammad. No encyclopedia would include it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Actually, Shi'a Islam does not prohibit images of Muhammad. I'll go find another, more authoritative image. As a historical figure, Muhammad existed, and a picture of him should definitely exist here. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::FYI, ''Bibliotheque nationale de France'' has verified it [http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/grands/0_01.htm here] as authentically Al-Biruni. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 
Here is a small version that could work as the logo: 
[[Image:Conservapedia_Logo_sm.png]] 
[[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 17:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ribbix, I greatly appreciate your effort and your release, but I am more than a little skeptical about your commitment to this project. Please accept my apologies if I'm wrong, but I've reviewed your edits and they include troubling statements like this, "I am a very conservative when it comes to editing Conservapedia." [[User:Ribbix]]. The files you've edited also have another characteristic: they have been "page viewed" an inordinate number of times. Curious, isn't that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::I understand why you would be skeptical. In all honesty I am a libertarian and some might call me conservative while others call me liberal. I am struck between the quality of some of these pages. Some are very high quality and cite valid sources, while others are poorly written and do not cite sources at all. I do not know what to do. I am afraid if I edit some pages, people will revert them or block me because they do not share my viewpoint. I think it would be beneficial to state what issues Conservapedia stands by and which issues it does not. Conservative is a very broad term and there are different types of conservatism. My talk page isn't supposed to be an article, and so I don't think you should judge me by what I have on it. I am new to this whole Conservapedia thing. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 17:35, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

If you please, the logo on the main page needs to be corrected now. A user spotted the word "trustworthy" was misspelled. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:58, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks, Karajou. I've already let our webmaster know, but I don't think he's around right now. I imagine most of us use an old or custom skin so we don't see that logo often.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== I learned about your mom in English class ==

I just wanted to let you know. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 17:57, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Well, thank you. I suppose. English class??? My mom hasn't written any novels. I'm curious what the context was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ribbix, is the end of the line for your parody here? I'm still awaiting your explanation of how you learned about my mom in English class.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Do you find it irritating when people don't have the courtesy to respond to you? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:41, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You got me there. Touche.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Well, it would have been more effective if you hadn't been replying to my post above at the time I was writing it. Touche yourself. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:51, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Is your mom Phyllis Schlafly? Sorry, I didn't see your previous messages until now. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 21:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
(needless Wikipedia link removed)

:: Ribbix, I think you're a parody. Yes, that's my mom and, for the third time, please answer my question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::: We were reading a book and it referenced the ERA and so we watched this film about the 80s in general and it talked about how your mom played a major role in the Anti-ERA movement. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 21:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Really? Reading about ERA in '''English''' class??? The '''80s''' in general???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I just knew your name sounded familiar and then I remembered that we learned about her in school. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 21:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Ah, you are starting to contradict yourself. It's not English class anymore, it's "in school". Ribbix, I've looked at your edits and I've looked at the inordinate page views on your edits. I'm convinced you're a parody. Your account will be blocked at 10 pm ET tonight. Wikipedia will welcome your edits. Feel free to apologize here before you're blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::As long as the English class was in school, there is no contradiction in claiming both "in English class" and "in school". It's like saying "in Iowa" and "in America"; they could both be true without contradiction. Secondly (and this is a weaker point because you would know more about the American situation than me), when I was in school (decades ago in Australia), our English classes at times amounted more to "social studies" than the English language. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I think you are confused, but I seriously learned about your mom in English class. I don't want to explain it any better because I will probably just make it more confusing. I do not know what you mean by a parody but it seems like I am not welcome here, so I will stop editing. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 21:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: Furthermore, if you think Wikipedia is too biased, why don't you edit it to make it unbiased? [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 21:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Ribbix, that's not an apology. I repeat: I've read your edits and I've reviewed the traffic. Wikipedia will welcome you. It distorts and erases my edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Goodbye cruel conservative world! I hope the libs will be more kind to me. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 22:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Great job, Andy. Another good, friendly editor gone. You're doing an excellent job of creating hostility, you know, thus further separating Conservapedia from Wikipedia. Congratulations! --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 22:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Our loss is Wikipedia's gain! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Of all people, I would think you wouldn't want to encourage WP's gain. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Redirect to Conservapedia ==

(discussion continued on [[Conservapedia:Sysops]] page).

== The 90/10 rule ==

I have posted at [[Conservapedia talk:Commandments]] on the 90/10 rule. I would be interested in your views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU essay==

I think it would be a good idea for you to link your essay on the Boy Scouts and the ACLU to the ACLU page. I think I've mentioned this before, but I think it would be cool to incorporate individual essays more into the site. I remember you saying that you wanted Conservapedia to be a site for individual intellectual thought. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Excellent idea, Dan! Thanks. Go ahead if you have a specific way to do this in mind. If not, then I'll do it a little later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Front page ideas ==

It would be good to have more collaboration and assistance on redoing the front page every night. We could set up a page for ideas. Here's what I have in mind for tonight:

Breaking News: Wolfowitz and neoconservatives

Entry of the Day: change to Liberal Falsehood of the Day this time and describe the liberal support of UFOs and ETs, with links to Jimmy Carter and Carl Sagan and a picture of a spaceship.

On this Day: It's pretty thin for April 16, but Lenin returning to Russia might be best.

Ideas?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Its totally my birthday on the 16th...Thats news right?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ha ha. I like that, Elamdri. Happy birthday, dude!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Ty, my big 2-0.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

April 19th is the anniversary of the [[Oklahoma City Bombing]]. I've started an article there. Any particular areas which should be fleshed out? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That's an important one. On Wednesday, if we got the Paul Revere article up to snuff, we could do that, because April 18 was the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::OH thanks guys, my 20th birthday isn't important enough for the Front Page eh? I SEE HOW IT IS! ;)
--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Blocked Horace for harrrassing me at my discussion page and 90/10 rule ==

Blocked Horace for harrrassing me at my discussion page and 90/10 rule. Please see that the blocking is not overruled as he is a 90/10 flagrant abuser who whines but does not contribute. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:47, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Mr. Aschlafly, something '''needs''' to be done about this. A: Horace was not harassing Conservative, he only made one post on his talk page; B: [[User:Murray|Murray]] posted Horace's editing stats on Conservative's talk page, which showed that Horace is not in violation of the 90/10 rule; C: Conservative has removed both Horace's and Murray's edits to his talk page, something which he is notorious for, yet should not be done, as this creates problems for anyone trying to observe what happened, as they have to browse through page history. A user's talk page is not his to do as he sees fit, instead it is a means of communication between the user and the rest of the community. I understand you seem to think Conservative is a good editor, and while I personally (and a large portion of the community, it seems) feel otherwise, this is beyond personal opinion. This is about the well-being of Conservapedia. His actions do '''nothing''' to help this site. There was no reason to block Horace, he needs to be unblocked ASAP. Thank you. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 23:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

If this is true, then he should be unblocked --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Obviously I concur in the above. I also have to add that there is one other editor who certainly dips below the "90/10" rule - TK :-P -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::*I agree Andy should look into it. But I also observe edits were made to the "vote" about the block rule after people had posted which made their comments seem crazy. So, it isn't exactly something not done often. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Harassament isn't fun, or funny. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I g2g for the night man... '''have fun arguing with Conservative, he's being a bit odd tonight. Then again, when isn't he?''' --Hojimachongtalk 00:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
'''Peace Hoji... :-P You'll be missed. I should be studying so I can be a fancy lawyer someday, and not fail my exams & life in general. Hoji, one important reminder - the law is always on our side. Look it up; it's good stuff'''.-AmesGyo! 00:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Not ashamed of those at all, TK. I stand by them. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sad. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Kenneth Wald==

I'm currently working on an article for him, since I'm reading one of his books for a research paper, and In it, I saw he has a complete list of supreme court cases that had a significant affect on the distinction on church and state, as well as their subject and their outcome (Whether or not they favored seperation or accomidation.) Would you like me to post a copy?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, assuming it's your work. Would this be in the format "Essay:_______"? Sounds like it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::Might, As I said, I'm working on a research paper right now "Evangelical Christianity and Party Identification in the United States." So I dunno.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== help with your life in outer space article ==

Please read this: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2196 I would also recommend this: http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:58, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Please add material as you think best, Conservative. I want this to go on the front page tonight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Exotheology ==

Aschlafly, did you not read the Times article you cited? It explicitly states that exotheology is the theology of outer space. Nothing to do with the science of extraterrestrial life. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: What's the difference? You're splitting hairs. I'll do another search in the Time archives to see how the term is used, but it's synonymous with belief in ETs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Dude, this is supposed to be an _encyclopedia_, remember? If a real encycloped mixed up, say, Greece and Rome, I'd imagine you'd be very unimpressed by their quality-control. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 01:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::What's the difference? Everything. I'm not splitting hairs. Exotheology is the investigation of how things in space can affect religion. '''NOT''' belief in ET life. Have you even read the sources you cite? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I asked you for another term. Give me a suitable replacement and I'll use it. But censorship is not an option.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I did. I said what exotheology was. "The investigation of how things in space can affect religion." aka the theology of outer space. And I asked if you read the sources you site. Did you? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Colin, I did read the sources. You're going to lose your Sysop privileges if you continue to make liberal edits to this entry. You did not suggest a replacement term, but instead you suggested a diluted definition. Life doesn't exist in outer space and that's the point. It was (and is) liberal to pretend it does. Give me another term for the belief that life exists in outer space and I'll use it. But don't interfere with the facts and theme of this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: It's a bit dangerous to work under the mindset that the belief ''cannot'' be true, and edit from that point of view. That's why CP isn't as concise and clean as it should be. Having said that, there is no issue regarding the edit war. It can be a pseudoscience, or a pseudoreligion, or a belief (a la Scientology). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm not making "liberal" edits. My fact tag was a request for actual cited information, something the commandments require. I've read all the sources you cite, and none of them support what you're claiming. And how do you know life doesn't exist in outer space? Please show me where to find this information! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Are you seriously going to step all over the Commandments? Others on here work hard to ensure what they post follows the commandments, yet you have repeatedly posted uncited and nonfactual information (speculation and opinion at best in some cases) on the Exotheology page. Moreover, you insist on writing an entry that doesn't even relate to the actual title. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Colin, the entry is completely factual. Most scientists now reject the existence of life in outer space. You haven't suggested a replacement term despite my repeated requests. I'm not going to waste more time on this, as it is very late here. No liberal edits of this factual entry will be allowed simply to appease a liberal point-of-view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry, apparently me giving a definition multiple times doesn't cut it. And please show me where multiple scientists reject the existence of life in outer space. I've yet to meet one at Vandy. And again, where is this proof that there is no life in outer space? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::: It's in the cited Time magazine article. I've adjusted the definition to appease you but I'm not going to dilute the point. The term used doesn't matter to me but the entry is not going to be made more liberal. As I said, it's late here and I'm going to sign off soon. Feel free to debate on the talk page but do not change this entry further. Write your own entries if you like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Most scientists now reject the existence of life in outer space.''.
:::::I guess these are the same 'most scientists' who reject Evolution? That's why NASA keeps sending probes to places like Mars and Europa in hopes of finding a few microbes, I guess.
:::::Hm... was Robert A. Heinlein a 'liberal'? I don't think he would have agreed with your description. Not '''every''' Conservative treats the Old Testament as a science text, you know. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 01:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: I actually posted this allready to the discussion of the article related, but as i see there is discussion about the subject in here too, ill do it again: The article now says, "Today most scientists doubt the existence of life in outer space, yet they support continuing to spend money on searching for it." And the source where its allegedly taken lists few scientists who dont belieave and then states "But such pessimism represents a minority view among scientists, at least those with their eyes on the stars." Mayby something worth fixing? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 04:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==How Wikipedians view Conservapedia==

Andy, I conducted an impromptu discussion, over the weekend, on the #wikipedia [[IRC]] channel and posted the edited transcript at [[How do Wikipedians see Conservapedia?]]. The tone of the conversation was largely constructive. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: Interesting. I suspect that our growth has been greater than Wikipedia's at a comparable time. I'm confident the quality in our entries has been better also.

: Wikipedia is really an anti-intellectual movement, akin to the Cultural Revolution, and I think the smart editors have or will leave it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would call it an "anti-elitist" movement, a meritocracy in [[denial]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Petition to restore move functionality to normal users ==

I've started this at [[User:Hacker/Petition to restore move functionality to normal users]]. I'm terribly annoyed by my inablity to move pages, and I'm sure many others are as well. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 13:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: No, moves are too disruptive. Maybe one day that feature will return to all users, but not yet. Thanks anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

In the meantime, Hacker, if you're moving to correct mispellings, just blank & redirect to the correct spelling. That's what I do.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:The problem with that approach is that it leaves the history at the old address. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh dear! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== exotheology article ==

I am working on a project today and will not be of much help in regards to you getting the article up tonight. However, here are two additional sources for you if you want to build up the article today:

http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/ufo.htm

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/1791/astronomer-links-ufos-to-occultism

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Pointers ==

I started an article on Congressman [[C. Michael Thompson]]. I am hoping to bring it to featured and would like (if it isn't to much of a bother) some advice on what I can do to make it better. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 20:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: Well, it seems to say he was born in 1999. That doesn't sound right....--[[User:BobD|BobD]] 20:32, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: Looks great, Geo. I made some very minor formatting-type improvements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[AFD Iraq body Count Project]]==
Andy, would review the AFD on [[Iraq body Count Project]]; this is an organization, using a particularly insensitive name to the victims and families, is attempting to pass itself off as non-profit and solict funds whereas its website specifically states donations are not tax-deductable.[http://www.iraqbodycount.org/donations.php] Attempting to capitalize on the deaths of people appears highly questionable, and we perhaps should not link to it or in anyway promote this site. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*I cannot imagine why it hasn't been deleted. Follow the links, Andy, here: [http://www.iraqbodycount.org/contacts.php] --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::"''is attempting to pass itself off as non-profit and solict funds whereas its website specifically states donations are not tax-deductable''"
::Ignoring any other issues, what's the problem with this? Is soliciting funds only acceptable to Americans if they can get a tax deduction in return? Does not being able to offer tax deductibility somehow bring into question its non-profit status?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What evidence do we have the "donations" will be used for this alleged "project"? How do we know the donations" are not going to be used to purchase an air conditioned dog house, payoff somebodies mistress, fund Nicaraguan Contras, or compenstate the families of suicide bombers? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That link does seem self-serving and not authoritative, as required by our rules. Please feel free to delete it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

== Hey, Not fair! ==

Hey, how come that Andy Schlafly website gets to have a decent article on evolution and we have to put up with Conservative's nonsense article? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 02:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Create your own wiki and you can put whatever you want there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Horace, do you hear that bell tolling? I can...faintly right now...off in the distance.....listen, you'll hear it! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-17T23:43:08Z

Hacker: /* Pornography's Role!? */ Come on.

{{debate}}
I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into [[hard-core pornography]]? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''' - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Um...might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only leathal when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.

WELL PUT

:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads ''Playboy'' is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
:And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know every time I watch some hardcore porn, I get this intense urging to go commit violent acts, don't y'all? :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Perhaps you don't think Scott Peterson's murders were violent acts??? Law enforcements officers will tell you, if you care to ask, that pornography is what they find when they search criminals' homes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I do not think Scott Peterson was given a fair trial and was wrongfully incarcerated, given no proof of his guilt and only circumstantial evidence at best. I don't know whether he he's guilty or not; if he did commit murder, then yes, his acts were violent (as are most, if not all, murders). Regardless, I'm sure that searching many people's homes would result in finding pornography. It's hard to think that such a huge industry would only be supported by criminals. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That seems like an ad hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Do most people who look at porn perform criminal acts, or are most criminal acts comitted by people who also look at porn? Interesting. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Most people period look at porn. If I were to give you 100 random american males of ages 18-40, I believe you'd struggle to select five of them that had never ever seen hardcore porn. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between having seen it before and making a pattern of seeking out more and more extreme pornography. And even most people who do that aren't going to be violent. I'm not arguing that, either. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Intresting, after reading some of the comments, i would like to make the claim that watching hardcore porn actually makes one more liable to become contributor in Conservapedia. Ill back my claim by stating that if we would search the hard drives of the contributors here, i bet we would find some porn in most cases. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you think a search of the Virginia Tech killer's computer will likely turn up hardcore pornography? Do you think the college or police will tell the public if it does? My answers: yes to the first and probably no to the second. The mainstream media downplays or censors the connection of pornography with criminals, as it did in Scott Peterson's case. Less than 1% of the stories about Scott Peterson revealed that he was a porn addict.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You people are foul for turning this tragedy into a political football. What in the hell is the matter with you? Seriously, you should be on meds. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Im quite sure that he had some hardcore porn on his posession, im allso quite sure it was because he was a young male without a girlfriend, and had nothing to do with him being psycopath killer. The claim i made before is just as valid as the connection between pornography and violent mass murders. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Seriously, there's a difference between criminals being in possession of porn, and it causing their crime. Seriously, I would bet that ''most'' people who possess porn are ''not'' criminals. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 19:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a Joke?==
Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT) {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#cc0000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|65px]] |info=This user wishes guns would be illegal.}} [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!
--thebigjimmer

To thebigjimmer: Please refrain from calling people idiots because they don't share your opinnion. If you look at the discussion going on, its not about what the current law says on carrying guns, its about how should it be changed or should it stay as it is. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't call me an ''"idiot"'' while barraging me with language like "organised" instead of organized, "maltita" instead of militia, "havent" instead of haven't, "were" instead of we're and "herd" instead of heard. Now, as for the second amendment, I might also point out that this is an [[addendum]] to the [[constitution]] and thus can be changed. See the 18th amendment if you don't believe me. Further, my point is that if we can keep guns out of the hands of people who can't--say--use the language precisely, then we might all be a little safer. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I dont think it is wise to debate changes to the Bill of Rights. Where would the changes end? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I can appreciate that, but we live in a very different world than we did back then. The world of the pioneers was one in which people may only meet a few hundred folks in their lifetime. Today, we can easily meet thousands. Add to that the undeniably closer proximity to one another and you can start to see why having a lethal weapon in just anybody's hands is a bad idea. At least, it is to me. I think we shouldn't just ban them (although I'm fine with that) but if we were to be more responsible and take ownership of this problem we could do some real good. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I understand what you are saying, but i have to say i disagree. also, what do you mean when you say "be more responsible and take ownership of this problem" how is this to be done?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I think we like to think more guns are the answer to increasing gun violence. By "taking ownership" (a poor phrase, I admit) I meant that we should first admit that unrestrained sales of handguns and weaponry is ill-advised at best and unconscionably reckless at worst. How many people have to die before we say as a people, I don't want to watch more people die? I mean, is there really a good reason to have handguns? I point this out because it seems the only thing they are created for is anti-personnel use. Is there one good thing you can do with a handgun you can't do with a rifle--except hide it? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Obviously no one wants handguns in the hands of people who will abuse them, but also i think obviously they are guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. Further restraints on sales will most likely not do any good, seeing that most ill-used handguns are either stolen of bought illegaly. And handguns are a great way to relieve stress.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

::It's a worthy subject for debate, but I don't think it's as obvious as you think. I understand the opposing viewpoint, but there's a reasonable case to be made that the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " are not ambiguous. At the time of writing the Bill of Rights, citizen-organized militias were a necessary part of a functioning national army. Even through the Civil War, whole companies would be comprised of the men of a town or neighborhood.

::We don't run our military that way anymore. There's no expectation that the men of, say, Valdosta, Georgia should contribute a company of men to the war in Iraq, and in fact they'd be prevented from trying to join the operations there if they did. A well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state."

::Fun question that doesn't directly relate: look at the war in Iraq. Which side is fielding a bunch of loosely-organized militias who have to secure their arms on the down-low, and do you believe that they are "secur[ing] a free state?"[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::true, but I and others[http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html] still think that the ammendment was indeed created for the purpose of securing individual rights. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I appreciate that as well, but saying "a ban tomorrow does nothing today" does not solve the problem so much as foment it. IMO [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont understand. could you rephrase? English is my second language!![[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::Okay mister, you don't need to insult my little brother's intelligence just because of a few typing errors. I can guarantee, that he is more intelligent than you. Most my family of 16 recieved 4.0', and scored in the thirties on thier ACT, and are currently getting their doctorate in one field or another. And asking him not to call you an idiot, and then insulting his intelligence is a little hypocritical. Now on the issue on hand guns, you can hunt with them (deer). Your problem is that you look at a gun as a weapon, when it really is a tool. There are more useful things that can be done with guns than harmful. A hammer is a tool, and people can kill each other with those. So why not ban them as well. You think that eliminating guns will stop killing. Well no matter what you do people are going to kill each other. They did before there were guns, and they still will once guns have disappeared. Its a fact of life. All in all you should get your facts straight before you go flaunting your opinions. Buying a gun is much harder than getting your drivers license, I Know. And in conclusion, loud mouthed hippy liberals (like you), who think that they have the answeres to all of lifes questions are really just a drag on the character of the country and the whole human race for that matter. {{unsigned|thebigjimmer}}

:::: We loud mouthed hippy liberals (like me), would like to point out, that while nerve gas might be nice tool to get rid of the bugs in ones house, it dosen't mean it should be available to all. How many people you think this mass murderer would have killed if he could have gotten nerve gass? how many did he now kill with his guns, and how many would he have killed with an hammer? Making guns harder to get dosen't mean one couldn't practice hunting or shooting, most of those who are in favour of stricter gun control laws don't want to ban guns all together. Quite many are even willing to let people have some guns for self-defence. But for example i do think that current large number of guns around and the easy availability are an risk for the safety of most. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Amen, Jimmer.

:::: About the VT incident... one professor who was killed mercilessly at the hands of the gunman stood in the doorway of his classroom to protect his students from him. If that professor had a gun the outcome of this whole incident would have been a lot different. The professor would be a hero. Can't you guys see that this is the case? Arm the good-guys and disarm the bad-guys. The bad-guys will ALWAYS have guns. What can outlawing guns possibly do? Nothing. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::And that professor was an Israeli.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Really==
It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Userboxes/Uncategorized

2007-04-17T02:10:38Z

Hacker: /* Uncategorized */ {{UB|binary}}

===Uncategorized===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|{{UB|Galactic Empire}}
|-
|{{UB|Touchy}}
|-
|{{UB|Interest}}
|-
|{{UB|Mark Levin}}
|-
|{{UB|Geek}}
|-
|{{UB|admires|example}}
|-
|{{UB|alter ego|example}}
|-
|{{UB|noracists}}
|-
|{{UB|nobias}}
|-
|{{UB|Maia|(name of Valar)}}
|-
|{{UB|Irish Dancer}}
|-
|{{UB|Horse Lover}}
|-
|{{UB|Numenorian}}
|-
|{{UB|faveband|band}}
|-
|{{UB|Wikipedian}}
|-
|{{UB|MIMS}}
|-
|{{UB|pubschool}}
|-
|{{UB|tiny flags}}
|-
|{{UB|elephants}}
|-
|{{UB|Life begins|age}}
|-
|{{UB|G}}
|-
|{{UB|lies and stats}}
|-
|{{UB|noBush}}
|-
|{{UB|Socrates}}
|-
|{{UB|Earth}}
|-
|{{UB|Romans disco}}
|-
|{{UB|Nodak}}
|-
|{{UB|PhD awesome}}
|-
|{{UB|gay rights}}
|-
|{{UB|cows tasty}}
|-
|{{UB|lose weight}}
|-
|{{UB|environment}}
|-
|{{UB|Geek Code|x.y|Geek Code block|help=Parameter 1 defines the Geek Code version being presented, and parameter 2 defines your actual geek code.}}
|-
|{{UB|caffeine}}
|-
|{{UB|binary}}
|}

Template:User binary

2007-04-17T02:09:08Z

Hacker:

{{Userbox
|border-c = #000
|border-s = 1
|id-c = #888
|id-s = 12
|id-fc = #fff
|info-c = #fff
|info-s = 8
|info-fc = #000
|id = 1+1=10
|info = This user likes [[binary]].
}}

Template:User binary

2007-04-17T02:03:29Z

Hacker: New page: {{Userbox |border-c = #000 |border-s = 1 |id-c = #888 |id-s = 12 |id-fc = #fff |info-c = #fff |info-s = 8 |info-fc = #000 |id = 1+1=10 |info =...

{{Userbox
|border-c = #000
|border-s = 1
|id-c = #888
|id-s = 12
|id-fc = #fff
|info-c = #fff
|info-s = 8
|info-fc = #000
|id = 1+1=10
|info = This user likes [[Binary numeral system|binary]].
}}

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-04-17T01:53:57Z

Hacker: CP:RFA

<div style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0; width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 200px; color: white; padding: 0;">

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; float:left; background-color: #97c000; width: 85%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; padding-left: 0.5em;">
<div style="font-size: 200%; text-align: center; padding-top: 0.1em;">Welcome to CPWebmaster's (aka: [[User:AmesG/PanelEvolution|Fearless Leader]]) talk page</div>
<div style="font-size: 70%; text-align: center; padding: 0.2em;">This talk page is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox.</div>
</div>

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 16px; float: right; background-color: #74c0fa; width: 10%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; text-align: center;">
<div style="font-size: 120%;">[[User_talk:CPWebmaster/Archive1|Archive1]]</div>
</div>
</div>

<div style="width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 100%; color: white; padding-bottom: 20px;">
<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; background-color: #fff; width: 85%; margin-left: 0; margin-right: auto; padding: 0.5em; color: black;">

== Uploads ==

Dude, what is the deal with [[Special:Upload]]? I can ''never'' cause it to function appropriately. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pic==
LOL! Love the banner on your user page. Ames will be pleased :P. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== User Boxes... ==

Do I understand yours to mean you have something against Poultry? I'm shocked! Were do you stand on Turkey and Chicken, Mr. Webmaster? Exactly. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Love==
I think the new look of your user page is simply ''fabulous!''.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 21:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

Ben... you're a riot [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: Responded via email... dislike it. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Gosh, that is so "un-wiki" like, a private response, I would have been insulted for doing that, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, could you please explain what you have against my policy. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 09:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tim, I believe that this Wiki is something like a free-market. You have the supply (us editors) and the demand (people who want to use the site). What usually happens when a free-market becomes regulated? It is no longer free. Rules and regulations destroy the system. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 09:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::So you prefer Anarchy? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 14:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No Tim. Rules that are essential to the site such as no obscenity, etc. are the only rules that are needed. In the real world this would be comparable to laws against murder, stealing, etc. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 17:05, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Unblock Myk==
I have agreed to unblocking Myk. Is there a function with which to do so? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Karajou, I was supposed to message you too, but so much is happening it was delayed. I will do it for you, the unblocking.--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Change to the T-Rex page==
CPwebmaster, why the change on the T-Rex page? The research was cited and just released. Did you happen to read it before reverting?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with TimS' edits (and I will explain why on the talk page tomorrow), but neither do I agree with the amount that you removed. In cases like there where there is obviously or likely to be disagreement, couldn't you at the very least explain your rationale in the edit comment or on the talk page? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes... I did remove too much information... fixed [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Missing Links ==

For the computer illiterate, like me, would you consider restoring the link to "Special Pages" on the left? It is missing on several pages I was just on, but shows here on your own page...... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Good block ==

Good block this morning. The contributor has made many valid edits, so the one week time period is appropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== request ==

I sent a letter of assistance regarding our abortion articles to right to life groups and I sent about 40 emails. Keep an eye on my user discussion page for people saying they are interested in being Admins/SYSOPS. Look at their edits and promote them to Admins if you think it is warranted. Here is my discussion page: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Could you please revert the [[macroevolution]] article to the way it was before it was submitted to the panel? I left you a diff on the talk page. I understood that this was the policy regarding the panel - at least that's how it was with [[evolution]].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really don't see why this should be done. The article in its present state is perfectly acceptable. Also, I don't know of the policy you speak of. Can you point it out? Thanks [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[CP:RFA]] ==

Someone needs to periodically update this, and take the appropriate course of action for the applicants, and you seem to be a likely canidate. Thanks. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 21:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Userboxes/Uncategorized

2007-04-17T01:30:05Z

Hacker: /* Uncategorized */ {{Mark Levin}} was moved

Help:List of Templates

2007-04-17T01:28:58Z

Hacker: /* User Boxes */ {{Mark Levin}} was moved

This page contains lists of templates available on Conservapedia.

''Templates'' are predefined blocks of text or other code (including formatting). Advantages of using templates are:
* Consistency of style (using the same template in various articles).
* Save time (reusing text that has been written before).
* Easy updating (Changing the template allows one to change that text in every article that uses that template).
* Automatically include the page in a given category.
 

== Templates for Articles ==
* {{tl|Clear}} Causes following content to start below previous content, to avoid wrapping around pictures and boxes.
* {{tl|Epoch}} A sentence mentioning that the epoch mentioned is according to evolutionary science.
* {{tl|QuoteBox}} Provides a formatted box for quotes.
* {{tl|TOCright}} Puts the page's table of contents on the right.

=== Links ===
* {{tl|Bible quote}} Quote box for a Bible text and reference, with link to the passage on BibleGateway.com.
* {{tl|Bible ref}} Formatted Bible reference, with link to the passage on BibleGateway.com.
* {{tl|Main}} Notice that a more detailed treatment of the topic is on a different page.

* {{tl|Wp}} Link to Wikipedia article.
* {{tl|Wp2}} Link to Wikipedia article.

=== Information boxes ===
* {{tl|Book}} Infobox for an article about a book?
* {{tl|Christianity}} Infobox for articles about Christianity.
* {{tl|Element}} Infobox for an element of the periodic table.
* {{tl|Periodictable}} Periodic table of elements info box.
* {{tl|Planet}} Planet infobox.
* {{tl|Rome}} Infobox for articles about Ancient Rome.
* {{tl|Ship}} Infobox for a ship.
* {{tl|Solarsystem}} Infobox for articles about aspects of the Solar system.

=== Notices ===
* {{tl|Disambig}} Simple notice that this is a disambiguation page.
* {{tl|Disambiguation}} Expanded notice that this is a disambiguation page.
* {{tl|EndPJADAA}} Notice of end of sensitive (adult) content.
* {{tl|Endspoiler}} Notice that this is the end of a spoiler section.
* {{tl|Fallacy}} Notice that the content represents a logical fallacy. The type of fallacy can be specified, and a link will be provided to a page explaining that type of fallacy.
* {{tl|Inuse}} Notice that a page is being heavily revised and other editors should refrain from editing whilst the notice is there.
* {{tl|PJADAA}} Notice that the following material is sensitive (adult) content.
* {{tl|POV-check}} Notice that the article assumes the truth of a particular point of view.
* {{tl|Partially protected}} Notice that parts of the article are protected from editing.
* {{tl|Progress}} Notice that the page is undergoing "massive reconstruction" and inviting help.
* {{tl|ProtectNotice}} Notice that the article is protected from editing and may only be edited by sysops.
* {{tl|Protected}} Notice that the article is protected from editing. To be used on the article's talk page.
* {{tl|Protected by}} Notice that the article was protected from editing by a particular sysop.
* {{tl|Spoiler}} Notice that the article contains plot information.
* {{tl|Temporarily unprotected theory}} Notice that the page is temporarily unprotected but will again be protected from editing of the theory is made to sound like fact.
* {{tl|Unprotected}} Notice that the article was unprotected on a given date by a given sysop.
* {{tl|Unprotected by}} Notice that the page was unprotected by a given sysop.
* {{tl|Templates}} Notice that the page already has too many templates (how many is "too many"?).
* {{tl|Vandalism}} Notice that the page was blanked due to vandalism.

=== Citations ===
* {{tl|Cite}} Author, Title, Publisher, Date.
* {{tl|Cite book}} Multi-purpose citation?

=== Maintenance ===
* {{tl|Afd entry}} Notice that article has been proposed for deletion.
* {{tl|Confusing}} Notice that the article or section is confusing.
* {{tl|Db}} Notice that the page may be speedily deleted.
* {{tl|Delete}} Notice that this article has been nominated for deletion.
* {{tl|Delete Notice}} Notice that this article has been proposed for deletion, and should be discussed.
* {{tl|Diacritical}} Notice that the author of the article would like help with diacritical marks.
* {{tl|Dispute}} Notice that the section has been deleted until disputes are resolved.
* {{tl|Disputed section}} Notice that the section is disputed.
* {{tl|Draft}} Notice that an article or section has been moved to a different page as the result of a content dispute.
* {{tl|Draft2}} Notice that the page is a draft and should not be relied upon.
* {{tl|Expand}} Notice that the article needs expansion. A "a friendlier, more encouraging form of the {{tl|stub}} template".
* {{tl|Fact}} Notice that a citation is needed. Adds page to the category of Articles with unsourced statements.
* {{tl|Fact-historical}} Notice that a citation is needed. Adds page to the category of Articles with unsourced historical statements.
* {{tl|Fact-political}} Notice that a citation is needed. Adds page to the category of Articles with unsourced political statements
* {{tl|Fact-science}} Notice that a citation is needed. Adds page to the category of Articles with unsourced scientific statements.
* {{tl|Format}} Notice that the article needs proper formatting.
* {{tl|Generalize}} Notice that the description is highly specialised and a more general description is required.
* {{tl|Logical Fallacy}} Notice that the article contains at least one logical fallacy.
* {{tl|Merge}} Notice that a suggestion has been made to merge the section or article to another.
* {{tl|Merge to}} Notice that this section or article is being merged with another.
* {{tl|Needcite}} Notice that a citation is needed. Suggest using {{tl|Fact}} instead.
* {{tl|Prove}} Notice that (mathematical) proof is needed. Also adds page to the category Articles with unsourced mathematical statements.
* {{tl|RefAppeal}} Notice that the article needs credible references.
* {{tl|Rewrite}} Notice that the article or section needs rewriting.
* {{tl|Science-stub}} Notice that the science article is a stub and needs expansion.
* {{tl|Speedy}} Notice that the article has been nominated for speedy deletion. Unlike {{tl|db}}, it does not allow for a reason.
* {{tl|Stub}} Notice that the article is very short and needs expanding.
* {{tl|Vague word}} Notice that the meaning of the word is unclear.
* {{tl|Weasel words}} Question of who made the claim. Included the page in the category Articles with weasel-worded statements.
* {{tl|Who says}} Notice that the quotation or view needs clarifying as to who said it or holds the opinion.

== Templates for talk pages ==
* {{tl|Articlelink}} Link to article, talk, and history pages.
* {{tl|Block}} Warning to vandal that he will be blocked if he vandalises again. The page is specified. (Is this according to the rules?)
* {{tl|BlockNotice}} Warning to vandal that he will be blocked if he vandalises again. No page is specified. (Is this according to the rules?)
* {{tl|Delete personal remark}} Put this template around an inappropriate personal remark to make it "vanish". Includes the page in the category "Personal Remarks".
* {{tl|Protest}} Advice on where to make a protest about abuse by another editor or a sysop.
* {{tl|Remove personal remark}} Notice that a personal mark has been removed. Adds the page to the category Personal remarks.
* {{tl|Show personal remark}} Reinstate personal remark hidden by {{tl|Remove personal remark}}, and includes page in category Personal Remarks.
* {{tl|Unsigned}} Notice that the preceding comment was posted by a particular user who didn't sign it.

== Templates for debate pages ==
* {{tl|Debate}} Notice that the page is a debate page. Includes page in the category of debates.
* {{tl|Debate-humorous}} Notice that the page is a debate page. Includes page in the category of humorous debates.
* {{tl|Debate-philosophy}} Notice that the page is a debate page. Includes page in the category of philosophical debates.
* {{tl|Debate-politics}} Notice that the page is a debate page. Includes page in the category of political debates.
* {{tl|Debate-religion}} Notice that the page is a debate page. Includes page in the category of religious debates.
* {{tl|Debate-science}} Notice that the page is a debate page. Includes page in the category of science debates.

== Templates for user pages ==
* {{tl|Babel}} For user boxes, to indicate languages known to the user.
* {{tl|Busy}} Notice that the user is busy in real life.
* {{tl|Cgot}} Advice that a comment the user added to an article should go on the article's talk page.
* {{tl|Communist}} Notice that the user has been included in Horace's list of suspected communists (humerous).
* {{tl|Indefblock}} Notice that the user has been indefinitely blocked.
* {{tl|Indent}} Advice to user on his talk page on how to use indenting.
* {{tl|Sysop Pledge}} Notice that the sysop will not arbitrarily block users.
* {{tl|Sysop Pledge2}} As for {{tl|Sysop Pledge}} with slightly altered wording.
* {{tl|Sysop Pledge3}} As for {{tl|Sysop Pledge}} with slightly altered wording and different formatting.
* {{tl|Useraway}} Notice that the user is away from Conservapedia for an extended time.
* {{tl|Userboxbottom}} Defines the bottom of a column of user boxes.
* {{tl|Userboxbreak}} Creates a break in a column of user boxes, with either a sub-heading or a horizontal line.
* {{tl|Userboxtop}} Defines the top of a column of user boxes (or other items such as pictures).
* {{tl|Weekend}} Notice that the user is away from Conservapedia for the weekend.
* {{tl|Welcome}} Welcome notice for new users.

=== User Boxes ===
See [[Conservapedia:Userboxes]] for a list of user box templates, which all start with "User ".

== Templates for other templates ==
* {{tl|!}} Allows the pipe character (|) to be included in a template without it having the normal meaning of a pipe.
* {{tl|Tl}} Used to show how a template is written and includes a link to the template, but does not include the template (this template is used for the references to templates on this page).
* {{tl|UB}} Used for the indexes to user boxes.
* {{tl|Userbox}} Base template for standard user boxes.
* {{tl|Userbox-2}} Base template for double-ended user boxes.
* {{tl|Userbox-r}} Base template for reversed user boxes.

== Miscellaneous templates ==
* {{tl|Category redirect}} Notice for a category page that the category should not be used.
* {{tl|DeletedAFD}} Advice for a page where deletion of an article was discussed that the article has been deleted.
* {{tl|Deleted page}} Notice that the page has been deleted and protected from re-creation. (Actually diverts to [[Conservapedia:Deleted and Protected]].
* {{tl|Deletedpage}} As for {{tl|Deleted page}}
* {{tl|Guideline}} Notice that the page represents a Conservapedia guideline.
* {{tl|Large category}} Notice (for category page?) that the category is becoming very large.
* {{tl|Misspelled}} A helper template, mainly intended to be used on [[Conservapedia:Commonly misspelled words]].
* {{tl|Policy proposal}} Notice that the following represents a ''proposed'' policy or guideline.
* {{tl|Redirect}} Creates a redirect.
* {{tl|Scientific theory}} Outline for an article on a scientific theory.

=== Templates for the Main page ===
These templates comprise the contents of the main sections of the [[Main Page]]. They are protected.
* {{tl|AboutC}}
* {{tl|Newsline}}
* {{tl|Tfa}}

== Unknown ==
* {{tl|Cct}} Notice that constructive criticism is welcome.
* {{tl|User}} Links to user's page, talk page, contributions list, and count of edits.
* {{tl|Userblock}} Links to a user's page, talk page, contributions, and blocks.

== Obsolete and redirect templates ==
Most of these templates could be deleted (but first the What Links Here function should be used to see if the template is in use), but some should be retained as valid alternatives to the templates they redirect to.
* {{tl|Arkansas Leg-Hound}} Redirects to {{tl|User Arkansas Leg-Hound}}
* {{tl|Aussie}} Redirects to {{tl|User Aussie}}
* {{tl|Catholic}} Redirects to {{tl|User Catholic}}
* {{tl|Cite needed}} Redirects to {{tl|fact}}
* {{tl|Cn}} A citation is needed. (use {{tl|Fact}} instead.)
* {{tl|Fact-history}} Redirect to {{tl|Fact-historical}}
* {{tl|Fact-scientific}} Redirects to {{tl|Fact-science}}
* {{tl|Interest}} Redirects to {{tl|User Interest}}
* {{tl|Lon}} ???
* {{tl|Protect}} Redirects to Protected.
* {{tl|Quotebox}} Redirects to {{tl|QuoteBox}} (should be retained as an alternative.)
* {{tl|Says who}} Redirect to {{tl|Who says}}
* {{tl|Stub2}} Redirects to {{tl|Stub}}
* {{tl|Unprotect}} Redirects to {{tl|Protected by}}
* {{tl|Userenuk}} Redirects to {{tl|User en-UK}}