Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Boolean logic

2007-05-23T02:02:05Z

HeartOfGold: Adding venn diagrams

'''Boolean logic''' is an algebraic system with applications in philosophy, electronics, and software.

It is named after George Boole, who defined the system in the 1800s.

== Operators ==

The two basic operators in boolean logic are the AND (<math>\cap</math>, <math>\wedge</math>, *, intersection, or product) and OR (<math>\cup</math>, <math>\vee</math>, +, union, or sum) operator.

Every boolean equation can be reduced to a sum of products.

=== Truth Tables for AND and OR operators ===
[[Image:VennAnd1.gif|right|250px|thumb]]
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! A
! B
! A <math>\cap</math> B
|-
| 0
| 0
| 0
|-
| 0
| 1
| 0
|-
| 1
| 0
| 0
|-
| 1
| 1
| 1
|}
[[Image:VennOr1.gif|right|250px|thumb]]
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! A
! B
! A <math>\cup</math> B
|-
| 0
| 0
| 0
|-
| 0
| 1
| 1
|-
| 1
| 0
| 1
|-
| 1
| 1
| 1
|}

== See Also ==
*[http://www.learn-c.com/boolean.htm Boolean logic tutorial]

File:VennOr1.gif

2007-05-23T01:51:32Z

HeartOfGold: Venn Diagram of logical OR. I am the author and release to the public domain.

Venn Diagram of logical OR. I am the author and release to the public domain.

File:VennAnd1.gif

2007-05-23T01:50:51Z

HeartOfGold: Venn Diagram of Logical And. I am the author and release to the public domain.

Venn Diagram of Logical And. I am the author and release to the public domain.

Boolean logic

2007-05-23T01:32:31Z

HeartOfGold: Boolean logic new article

'''Boolean logic''' is an algebraic system with applications in philosophy, electronics, and software.

It is named after George Boole, who defined the system in the 1800s.

== Operators ==

The two basic operators in boolean logic are the AND (<math>\cap</math>, <math>\wedge</math>, *, intersection, or product) and OR (<math>\cup</math>, <math>\vee</math>, +, union, or sum) operator.

Every boolean equation can be reduced to a sum of products.

=== Truth Tables for AND and OR operators ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! A
! B
! A <math>\cap</math> B
|-
| 0
| 0
| 0
|-
| 0
| 1
| 0
|-
| 1
| 0
| 0
|-
| 1
| 1
| 1
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! A
! B
! A <math>\cup</math> B
|-
| 0
| 0
| 0
|-
| 0
| 1
| 1
|-
| 1
| 0
| 1
|-
| 1
| 1
| 1
|}

== See Also ==
*[http://www.learn-c.com/boolean.htm Boolean logic tutorial]

FPGA

2007-05-23T01:12:52Z

HeartOfGold: Short article on FPGA

An '''FPGA''' is a '''F'''ield '''P'''rogrammable '''G'''ate '''A'''rray, a type of [[gate array]] that is programmable after assembly. Usually, FPGAs are also reprogrammable, meaning they can be upgraded.

== Architecture ==
Most FPGAs have combinatorial blocks followed by sequential elements. A combinatorial block can be used to implement boolean logic such as AND, OR, NAND, NOR, and other combinations. A sequential element is a flip flop, a single bit memory, most often a D flip-flop. Some FPGAs also have more complex memories organized as RAM. The most complex FPGAs have processors, multi-giga bit tranceivers, DSP and other high-order functions built in.
== Applications ==
FPGAs can be used for a variety of embedded system applications, from specialized network packet processors (e.g., VoIP firewalls) to systems on a chip (processor, memory, peripheral devices). For example, Internet core routers often use FPGAs on media cards for packet processing and routing functions.

== See Also ==
*[http://www.fpga-faq.org/FPGA_Boards.shtml List of FPGA boards and systems]
*[http://www.actel.com/techdocs/appnotes/default.aspx Actel Application notes]
*[http://www.altera.com/literature/lit-an.jsp Altera Application notes]
*[http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xweb/xil_publications_index.jsp?category=Application+Notes Xilinx application notes]

Atom

2007-05-22T21:02:13Z

HeartOfGold: You cannot see electrons, but you can detect them. Probably needs more work in wording

[[Image:Ehli.png|thumb|right|Depiction of the helium atom]]
An '''atom''' is the smallest unit of chemical element that still retains the element's properties. The word atom comes from the Greek term for indivisible, ''átomos''.

===Structure===

Atoms are comprised of three subatomic particles: positively charged [[proton|protons]], electrically neutral [[neutron|neutrons]] and negatively charged [[electron|electrons]]. Protons and neutrons are comprised of quarks and are contained in close proximity in the center of an atom, forming the [[nucleus]]. Electrons inhabit the space around the nucleus, and are arranged around it in a series of layers, known as [[electron shell|shells]] or energy levels.
Currently quarks and electrons are considered truly elementary particles, though neither are capable of being seen.

===Atomic Number===

Chemical elements are made up of atoms with certain properties. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom (known as the [[atomic number]]) determine the properties of the atom, and the element it constitutes. For example, [[Hydrogen]] has one proton, and therefore an atomic number of 1. [[Oxygen]] has 8 protons in its nucleus and has an atomic number of 8. Under normal conditions, atoms contain an equal number of protons and electrons.

===Ions===

Atoms are normally electrically neutral; they have no charge. However, electrons in the [[valence shell]] can be gained or lost (depending on the element and the conditions) to form an [[Ion|ion]]. An atom that loses electrons becomes positively charged and is known as a cation. An atom that gains electrons electrons becomes negatively charged and is known as an anion.

Many common substances are made up of ions. For example, [[sodium chloride]] (NaCl), otherwise known as table salt, is made up of [[sodium cations]] (Na+) and [[chlorine]] anions (Cl-) in equal proportions. The negatively charged chlorine ions are attracted to the positively charged sodium ions, forming an [[ionic bond]]. This results in a lattice structure, which is responsible for sodium chloride being crystalline in its solid state.

===Isotopes===

Atoms of the same element that have different numbers of neutrons are known as isotopes. Some isotopes are more stable than others, and occur more often in nature, but there is no "standard" number of neutrons in a given element. The atomic weight of an element is a weighted average of the number of neutrons and protons (number of protons remains constant in a given element) in all naturally occurring isotopes.

[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-22T20:57:56Z

HeartOfGold: /* Current Alerts */

Archive:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/archive 1|01]]

'''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]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

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:Billwsu]]...See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Paternity_test&diff=prev&oldid=172943 here] for example. And [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Jnl001&diff=prev&oldid=172902 here] where the user edits another user's account. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 16:35, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::User now [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABillwsu&diff=172999&oldid=172993 claims] one of the edits was a new user error. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 16:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I just provided a welcome message to this user as he ''may'' be making honest mistakes, according to other users. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 16:57, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
*I blocked [[user:Etaroced|Etaroced]] because he admitted to being a sockpuppet of tmtoulouse on his userpage. Was this correct to do?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
*:YES! Congratulations! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:47, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
*:I am so mad because i can't block these guys. Who ever is doing this has alot of IPs--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:49, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
*:Ditto [[User_talk:Alfred|Alfred]] and [[User_talk:LSD|LSD]] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:47, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
*:Obviously the same is true with [[User_talk:VirginIP|VirginIP]] and [[User_talk:BlockedIP|BlockedIP]] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:38, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
*:Rather obvious, but look at user [[User_talk:PCP|PCP]] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:33, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
* <s>[[User_talk:Conservateur|Conservateur]] made this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scopes_trial&diff=166184&oldid=159587 edit], which I assumed was an accident, but after I posted a notice to his talk page I saw other warnings about what might other similarly strange edits.</s> [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 20:31, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::In the interest of full disclosure, the above content may have been approved by Andy, though I am not sure why. I certainly don't like Gore, but Gore's results in an election has not been sufficiently linked to the Scopes Trial, and cluttering it up with random political facts seemed strange. I retract the implication of the previous post about Conservateur. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 20:44, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:FaithPlus1|FaithPlus1]] going out of his way to insert BCE into articles, blocked by Niandra for 3 days. His screen name is a reference to a ''South Park'' episode. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:03, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Cullen21|Cullen21]] made inappropriate edits. See [[Karl Rove]]--'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 13:40, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] violates the 90/10 rule and he seems to be to go over the top on conservative issues which makes him look like he really isn't conservative at all, but just pretends to be.--'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]'''
: blocked for a week due to violation of 90/10 rule. Thanks, Adrian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:33, 17 May 2007 (EDT)\

*{{user|Binary42}}, sock of [[User:Linus M.|Linus M.]], seriously. Ask me/him. --[[User:Binary42|Binary42]] 22:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
*:Your name contradicts itself, anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:30, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
*: It's sad that people feel a need for attention like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:45, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*somehow, the user [[User:box|box]]'s page had a category "Worthless Conservapedians" that included everyone. I deleted everything on his page and now it is gone.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

*look at this [[Albania|page]]. Its completly messed up? I dont get it?-[[User:box|Box]] 22:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Oh i made out the writing it spells "icewe"????? -[[User:box|Box]] 22:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Figleaf]] You'll see what I mean when you check up his edits. See Vietnam War and Alexander the Great. You may wish to stop him before he can do more damage. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: Blocked for infinite duration. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Jpatt|jp]] Other than 7 edits to [[Separation of Powers]] of which 3 are simply adding internal links and one is adding a return, this user has made no edits to actual articles. This user has however, made a total of 330 edits to Conservapedia so less than 3% of his edits are to actual pages. This user is in clear violation of the 90/10 rule. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Human|Human]] Declared Conservatives are actually not welcome on this one tiny little corner of CP. Who_will_liberals_support_for_President_in_2008. Liberals can post anywhere Conservatives not allowed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I left him an offer he can't refuse, so I think it will be okay now. BUT please don't taunt the Liberals too much, they completely have no sense of humor when it comes to things political. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:54, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::What JP, fails to mention here, is that this took place on Human’s user page.
::Human asked that users who self identify as conservatives not post on his personal user page asking liberal users who they would support as president but rather to post on his user page asking conservatives who they would support—that seems to be a very reasonable request (which JP chose, knowingly, to ignore). He seems to have been acting under the assumption that his user page was his castle and he could tell people who could post where on it. This doesn’t seem like abuse at all, but rather making a reasonable request that is well in line with the Conservapedia policy that a user has the right to decided how his user page is treated.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Liberal Reg, I am fine with what Human says however, people like you will comment on Republicans even though they are not one. Must be fair all they way around in order for his system to work. Otherwise, you'll have a section of liberal false hoods without rebuttal.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I count at least three errors of fact in your first sentence, allow me to clear them up. My name is neither “Liberal Reg” nor “Reg”, I identify as a Libertarian and not a liberal, and I have not posted to the conservative page and have no plans to do so. The first two are minor mistakes, but the third strikes me as a serious accusation (that I will violate the castle that is another user’s page and that I am a hypocrite). I would ask that you be clear about the facts before you accuse me of anything in the future.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry for offending you nod, first of all 'people like you' doesn't mean you have posted to Republicans. Second of all, all libertarians are just other liberals with a different name. You are defending John Edwards so strongly, yet he's not a libertarian. Who said anything about hypocrite? lighten up. Sysop, are we really allowed to debate here in the abuse forum?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*'''No, this isn't a debate place, and I will be removing such posts here, and cleaning it up later. Let me say this about user pages...your ONE user page and ONE discussion page is your castle. ''You cannot create dozens of other pages, like the political discussion page of Human, and expect to be entitled to the "rights" of your one user page/discussion page "castle"''. Now please move those extra pages, Human, out to the debate page space where they belong, or it will be done for you, and I wouldn't want to be responsible for any data loss, or edit conflicts.''' --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
: And '''this is not the page for personal direct comments''' (user talk pages are), we all are not reading this. (This case of comment to Human fixed by me.) --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|IDidItForIcwdg}} vandal. He is making inappropriate articles. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 19:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 20:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] Posted he was leaving for a while, left attack on CP and other users on page. Blocked two weeks. Pray for his returning rested and positive! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
**It appears that our "castles" are built out of very thin paper... gives me article/essay ideas, though. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 16:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Actually I think Sysops pages are castles, where as normal editors only live in the fields in mud huts. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Cookieman}} - replacing pages with llamas. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:44, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*Blocked by PhillipRayment. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 15:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|SeanTheSheep}} 2nd warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|Favor}} sock of icwdg --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 20:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Proof? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:He has a user box that says AmesG is the leader of conservapedia. And I have been seeing a lot of vandalism on this site that has been saying icwdg thinks AmesG should be unbanned. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 20:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
That's not proof. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:It is easier to block and unblock later than to fix the pages that a person has vandalized. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 21:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::AmesG does a better job of getting himself blocked than any Admin here. He likes the attention, but I agree with DanH, that box isn't much "proof" and check it, several others do, or did, have that same box. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|Sacrificialzeus}} vandalized my user page and other pages. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 15:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Jesuslover143}} vandal. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 15:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
*04:37, 8 May 2007, TK blocked Muschifresser (infinite, account creation blocked) (Parodist/Subtle Vandal: "Owing to their diet of eucalyptus leaves, which contain a volatile oil, Koalas are highly flammable. For this reason, it is recommended to consume them raw in the form of a carpaccio or Koala tartare."Also has sock,LordWhimsey‎ )
*04:38, 8 May 2007, TK blocked LordWhimsey (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Sock of Muschifresser )

*{{alert|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icwdg has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icwdg and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icwdg. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{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)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 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|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|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:Flippin|Flippin]] defaced my user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Auld_Nick&oldid=151416 here] (my castle? [[User_talk:Aschlafly#User_page_a_person.27s_castle.3F|see here]]) also
:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] added to [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]]'s user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ian_St_John&diff=151723&oldid=151721 here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ian_St_John&diff=151726&oldid=151723 here]. (his castle? [[User_talk:Aschlafly#User_page_a_person.27s_castle.3F|see here]]) [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 15:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*{{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)
*16:04, 6 May 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Hacker (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Hacker is a sock of Linus, Hacker is blocked now infinitely)

*{{user|Tomt}} Insubordinate and impolite remark at [[User talk:TK]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
**So I get a warning after I complained to another for making a rude comment about me? This makes no sense... --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 07:41, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
**TK is not "another" but has a higher position than you. I also told you to read [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]] but see no evidence you have done so. Furthermore, this page is not a place to argue about whether you have violated a rule. You are blocked for 36 hours. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
**'''UNBLOCKED''' after successful appeal to Mr. Schlafly. Welcome back! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Harlequin]] made inappropriate edits to bloodhound --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 19:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
**Blocked. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] If you look at his user page he sounds like a parodist. He makes fun of conservapedia articles and says how great this site is. Seems to be a bit over the top if you ask me. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 19:31, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:I blocked him for a week for violating the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] parodist/vandal --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 22:51, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
: blocked for a week due to violation of 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:33, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*All socks. Blocked infinite. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:23, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
#Hope (Latest: 02:38, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 02:36, 9 May 2007) [3]
#Solstace (Latest: 01:46, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:37, 9 May 2007) [2]
#Talk for me (Latest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) [1]
*[[User:Auld Nick]]. In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kilt&diff=152957&oldid=152944 this edit], he added [[:Image:Soldiers wearing Kilts.jpg]], with the edit comment "Image of soldiers in kilts" and the picture caption "Kilted Scottish Soldiers paying respect to their fallen comrades." He does not say in the talk page or in an edit comment why he chose an image in which one soldier's kilt has been lifted by wind to expose part of his bare buttocks. The use of such an image ought to have been discussed in Talk. If the point was to illustrate that kilts are worn without underwear, and if he sincerely thought such an image was appropriate, then the edit comment should have said something like "Image showing that kilts are worn without underwear." Therefore, I consider the edit comment misleading, and that trips my threshold for labeling it as "abuse." Put plainly, it's my opinion that Auld Nick is figuratively mooning Conservapedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT) P. S. Undoubtedly a copyright violation, too, although widely reproduced all over the Net. It appears to be an Associated Press photograph of one Lee Wotherspoon in Hong Kong on April 24, 1997. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for two hours. That'll larn 'im. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Extended to indefinte for sockpuppetry during block. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:51, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 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|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icwdg. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 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 icwdg. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 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:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

* Please investigate [[User:RSchlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
:* I second that. [[User:RSchlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT) This user is a sock of Icwdg and has been blocked.
:::I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is risible IMO. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::This is not the place for insults. Please see my detailed account on [[Talk:Geocentric theory]] before you make such judgements. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Insults? Where? Please don't make random accusatory posts, OfficerDibble, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::"I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is '''risible'''" I take "Risible" to be insulting, since I have worked long and hard to make the points I have on the article. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 05:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, if you object to furious editing of your work, and debate about it, a wiki is the wrong place for you. Your tone borders on the dramatic. If you are into drama, might I suggest working on one of the acting/dramatic arts pages? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*:OfficerDibble and myself have been following the comandments of conservapedia, RSchlafly has been deleting our work with out discussing our valid points. Be even objects to relevent bible verses being included. And the page block prevents us from making any changes. Clearly we are in the right here, as can plainly be seen in the history and talk page of the article. Also I have not been blocked and I am not a "sock of icwdg".[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:'''No Action''' Rschlafly is a Sysop Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::So are we to take this to mean that Sysops have carte blanche and can do whatever they want whenever? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:*You are to take it per the CP Guidelines. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines]] Failure to follow the directions of an Administrator, as to what is, and is not, appropriate behavior/content/actions, is a blockable offense. So is never-ending argument. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, is a simple precise answer such as '''''No''', Sysops do not have carte blanche and cannot do whatever they want whenever they want'' to much to ask? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

*When you leave your glass house, Auld Nick, perhaps you would make a better spokesperson for transparency and short comments. Either you are completely obtuse, or just ignoring what the Guidelines say, for a better (read dramatic) retort. Obviously at any website in the world, Administrators have more leeway than users. Just as that aging hippy Jimbo has at WP. Anything else on your mind? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for the [[Conservapedia:Civility|civil]] answer. That has clarified things for me. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 06:49, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I greatly resent users putting me on the spot about what another Sysop does or does not do. First, it isn't fair or polite. Secondly, if the intentions of the user were honorable, in my opinion, they wouldn't seek to make a public scene about it, and might, if they were using good manners, email about it. Is that really so unreasonable? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:03, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::::For the record we (or maybe just myself) didn't put you on the spot, the question was asked of Geo and you chose to respond. And I disagree about the honorable thing, if it is honorable, why not talk about it in public to let others decide. Doing things by email, behind everyone's backs make it seem like someone has something to hide. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well of course you do. But I was addressing Auld Nick. Sorry, we all don't agree with your wiki ways of doing things. It is a software, not a way of life. Your post smacks of Wikipedia bullying, it won't work here. You are now warned. Don't continue this. Take it up with the Sysop in question. Geo, BTW, answered you; "No Action". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::When you say your wiki ways, are you refering to me or Auld Nick again? And am I warned or Auld Nick? What wikipedia bullying tactics am I or Auld Nick using that are so different from you warning to block me or Auld Nick from this wiki? It is very hard to fill in the blanks and figure out what you mean when replies are very cryptic and sarcastic. And I did take it up with the sysop in question (as seen above), I asked Geo for an answer ''after'' he stated "No Action", he never replied. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, sorry to have confused you. By the way, the Sysop in question is RSchlafly, not Geo, not me. We merely attempted to provide answers, for which we have been whipped for. Now, take me seriously, no more on this. You have been given instruction by a Administrator to take it up with the Sysop you were/are complaining about, and told no action will be taken. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:54, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
*In response to the question by Jssr5, the reason for no action is that this is not the appropriate forum to debate tohe actions of a current Sysop. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 22:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-22T20:39:08Z

HeartOfGold: /* Current Alerts */

Archive:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/archive 1|01]]

'''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]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

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:Billwsu]]...See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Paternity_test&diff=prev&oldid=172943 here] for example. And [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Jnl001&diff=prev&oldid=172902 here] where the user edits another user's account. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 16:35, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::User now [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABillwsu&diff=172999&oldid=172993 claims] one of the edits was a new user error. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 16:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
*I blocked [[user:Etaroced|Etaroced]] because he admitted to being a sockpuppet of tmtoulouse on his userpage. Was this correct to do?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
*:YES! Congratulations! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:47, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
*:I am so mad because i can't block these guys. Who ever is doing this has alot of IPs--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:49, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
*:Ditto [[User_talk:Alfred|Alfred]] and [[User_talk:LSD|LSD]] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:47, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
*:Obviously the same is true with [[User_talk:VirginIP|VirginIP]] and [[User_talk:BlockedIP|BlockedIP]] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:38, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
*:Rather obvious, but look at user [[User_talk:PCP|PCP]] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:33, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
* <s>[[User_talk:Conservateur|Conservateur]] made this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scopes_trial&diff=166184&oldid=159587 edit], which I assumed was an accident, but after I posted a notice to his talk page I saw other warnings about what might other similarly strange edits.</s> [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 20:31, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::In the interest of full disclosure, the above content may have been approved by Andy, though I am not sure why. I certainly don't like Gore, but Gore's results in an election has not been sufficiently linked to the Scopes Trial, and cluttering it up with random political facts seemed strange. I retract the implication of the previous post about Conservateur. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 20:44, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:FaithPlus1|FaithPlus1]] going out of his way to insert BCE into articles, blocked by Niandra for 3 days. His screen name is a reference to a ''South Park'' episode. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:03, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Cullen21|Cullen21]] made inappropriate edits. See [[Karl Rove]]--'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 13:40, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] violates the 90/10 rule and he seems to be to go over the top on conservative issues which makes him look like he really isn't conservative at all, but just pretends to be.--'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]'''
: blocked for a week due to violation of 90/10 rule. Thanks, Adrian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:33, 17 May 2007 (EDT)\

*{{user|Binary42}}, sock of [[User:Linus M.|Linus M.]], seriously. Ask me/him. --[[User:Binary42|Binary42]] 22:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
*:Your name contradicts itself, anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:30, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
*: It's sad that people feel a need for attention like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:45, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*somehow, the user [[User:box|box]]'s page had a category "Worthless Conservapedians" that included everyone. I deleted everything on his page and now it is gone.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

*look at this [[Albania|page]]. Its completly messed up? I dont get it?-[[User:box|Box]] 22:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Oh i made out the writing it spells "icewe"????? -[[User:box|Box]] 22:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Figleaf]] You'll see what I mean when you check up his edits. See Vietnam War and Alexander the Great. You may wish to stop him before he can do more damage. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: Blocked for infinite duration. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Jpatt|jp]] Other than 7 edits to [[Separation of Powers]] of which 3 are simply adding internal links and one is adding a return, this user has made no edits to actual articles. This user has however, made a total of 330 edits to Conservapedia so less than 3% of his edits are to actual pages. This user is in clear violation of the 90/10 rule. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Human|Human]] Declared Conservatives are actually not welcome on this one tiny little corner of CP. Who_will_liberals_support_for_President_in_2008. Liberals can post anywhere Conservatives not allowed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I left him an offer he can't refuse, so I think it will be okay now. BUT please don't taunt the Liberals too much, they completely have no sense of humor when it comes to things political. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:54, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::What JP, fails to mention here, is that this took place on Human’s user page.
::Human asked that users who self identify as conservatives not post on his personal user page asking liberal users who they would support as president but rather to post on his user page asking conservatives who they would support—that seems to be a very reasonable request (which JP chose, knowingly, to ignore). He seems to have been acting under the assumption that his user page was his castle and he could tell people who could post where on it. This doesn’t seem like abuse at all, but rather making a reasonable request that is well in line with the Conservapedia policy that a user has the right to decided how his user page is treated.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Liberal Reg, I am fine with what Human says however, people like you will comment on Republicans even though they are not one. Must be fair all they way around in order for his system to work. Otherwise, you'll have a section of liberal false hoods without rebuttal.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I count at least three errors of fact in your first sentence, allow me to clear them up. My name is neither “Liberal Reg” nor “Reg”, I identify as a Libertarian and not a liberal, and I have not posted to the conservative page and have no plans to do so. The first two are minor mistakes, but the third strikes me as a serious accusation (that I will violate the castle that is another user’s page and that I am a hypocrite). I would ask that you be clear about the facts before you accuse me of anything in the future.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry for offending you nod, first of all 'people like you' doesn't mean you have posted to Republicans. Second of all, all libertarians are just other liberals with a different name. You are defending John Edwards so strongly, yet he's not a libertarian. Who said anything about hypocrite? lighten up. Sysop, are we really allowed to debate here in the abuse forum?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*'''No, this isn't a debate place, and I will be removing such posts here, and cleaning it up later. Let me say this about user pages...your ONE user page and ONE discussion page is your castle. ''You cannot create dozens of other pages, like the political discussion page of Human, and expect to be entitled to the "rights" of your one user page/discussion page "castle"''. Now please move those extra pages, Human, out to the debate page space where they belong, or it will be done for you, and I wouldn't want to be responsible for any data loss, or edit conflicts.''' --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
: And '''this is not the page for personal direct comments''' (user talk pages are), we all are not reading this. (This case of comment to Human fixed by me.) --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|IDidItForIcwdg}} vandal. He is making inappropriate articles. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 19:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 20:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] Posted he was leaving for a while, left attack on CP and other users on page. Blocked two weeks. Pray for his returning rested and positive! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
**It appears that our "castles" are built out of very thin paper... gives me article/essay ideas, though. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 16:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Actually I think Sysops pages are castles, where as normal editors only live in the fields in mud huts. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Cookieman}} - replacing pages with llamas. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:44, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*Blocked by PhillipRayment. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 15:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|SeanTheSheep}} 2nd warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|Favor}} sock of icwdg --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 20:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Proof? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:He has a user box that says AmesG is the leader of conservapedia. And I have been seeing a lot of vandalism on this site that has been saying icwdg thinks AmesG should be unbanned. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 20:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
That's not proof. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:It is easier to block and unblock later than to fix the pages that a person has vandalized. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 21:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::AmesG does a better job of getting himself blocked than any Admin here. He likes the attention, but I agree with DanH, that box isn't much "proof" and check it, several others do, or did, have that same box. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|Sacrificialzeus}} vandalized my user page and other pages. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 15:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Jesuslover143}} vandal. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 15:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
*04:37, 8 May 2007, TK blocked Muschifresser (infinite, account creation blocked) (Parodist/Subtle Vandal: "Owing to their diet of eucalyptus leaves, which contain a volatile oil, Koalas are highly flammable. For this reason, it is recommended to consume them raw in the form of a carpaccio or Koala tartare."Also has sock,LordWhimsey‎ )
*04:38, 8 May 2007, TK blocked LordWhimsey (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Sock of Muschifresser )

*{{alert|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icwdg has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icwdg and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icwdg. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{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)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 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|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|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:Flippin|Flippin]] defaced my user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Auld_Nick&oldid=151416 here] (my castle? [[User_talk:Aschlafly#User_page_a_person.27s_castle.3F|see here]]) also
:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] added to [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]]'s user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ian_St_John&diff=151723&oldid=151721 here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ian_St_John&diff=151726&oldid=151723 here]. (his castle? [[User_talk:Aschlafly#User_page_a_person.27s_castle.3F|see here]]) [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 15:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*{{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)
*16:04, 6 May 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Hacker (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Hacker is a sock of Linus, Hacker is blocked now infinitely)

*{{user|Tomt}} Insubordinate and impolite remark at [[User talk:TK]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
**So I get a warning after I complained to another for making a rude comment about me? This makes no sense... --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 07:41, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
**TK is not "another" but has a higher position than you. I also told you to read [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]] but see no evidence you have done so. Furthermore, this page is not a place to argue about whether you have violated a rule. You are blocked for 36 hours. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
**'''UNBLOCKED''' after successful appeal to Mr. Schlafly. Welcome back! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Harlequin]] made inappropriate edits to bloodhound --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 19:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
**Blocked. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] If you look at his user page he sounds like a parodist. He makes fun of conservapedia articles and says how great this site is. Seems to be a bit over the top if you ask me. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 19:31, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:I blocked him for a week for violating the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] parodist/vandal --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 22:51, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
: blocked for a week due to violation of 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:33, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*All socks. Blocked infinite. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:23, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
#Hope (Latest: 02:38, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 02:36, 9 May 2007) [3]
#Solstace (Latest: 01:46, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:37, 9 May 2007) [2]
#Talk for me (Latest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) [1]
*[[User:Auld Nick]]. In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kilt&diff=152957&oldid=152944 this edit], he added [[:Image:Soldiers wearing Kilts.jpg]], with the edit comment "Image of soldiers in kilts" and the picture caption "Kilted Scottish Soldiers paying respect to their fallen comrades." He does not say in the talk page or in an edit comment why he chose an image in which one soldier's kilt has been lifted by wind to expose part of his bare buttocks. The use of such an image ought to have been discussed in Talk. If the point was to illustrate that kilts are worn without underwear, and if he sincerely thought such an image was appropriate, then the edit comment should have said something like "Image showing that kilts are worn without underwear." Therefore, I consider the edit comment misleading, and that trips my threshold for labeling it as "abuse." Put plainly, it's my opinion that Auld Nick is figuratively mooning Conservapedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT) P. S. Undoubtedly a copyright violation, too, although widely reproduced all over the Net. It appears to be an Associated Press photograph of one Lee Wotherspoon in Hong Kong on April 24, 1997. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for two hours. That'll larn 'im. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Extended to indefinte for sockpuppetry during block. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:51, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 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|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icwdg. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 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 icwdg. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 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:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

* Please investigate [[User:RSchlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
:* I second that. [[User:RSchlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT) This user is a sock of Icwdg and has been blocked.
:::I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is risible IMO. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::This is not the place for insults. Please see my detailed account on [[Talk:Geocentric theory]] before you make such judgements. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Insults? Where? Please don't make random accusatory posts, OfficerDibble, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::"I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is '''risible'''" I take "Risible" to be insulting, since I have worked long and hard to make the points I have on the article. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 05:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, if you object to furious editing of your work, and debate about it, a wiki is the wrong place for you. Your tone borders on the dramatic. If you are into drama, might I suggest working on one of the acting/dramatic arts pages? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*:OfficerDibble and myself have been following the comandments of conservapedia, RSchlafly has been deleting our work with out discussing our valid points. Be even objects to relevent bible verses being included. And the page block prevents us from making any changes. Clearly we are in the right here, as can plainly be seen in the history and talk page of the article. Also I have not been blocked and I am not a "sock of icwdg".[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:'''No Action''' Rschlafly is a Sysop Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::So are we to take this to mean that Sysops have carte blanche and can do whatever they want whenever? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:*You are to take it per the CP Guidelines. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines]] Failure to follow the directions of an Administrator, as to what is, and is not, appropriate behavior/content/actions, is a blockable offense. So is never-ending argument. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, is a simple precise answer such as '''''No''', Sysops do not have carte blanche and cannot do whatever they want whenever they want'' to much to ask? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

*When you leave your glass house, Auld Nick, perhaps you would make a better spokesperson for transparency and short comments. Either you are completely obtuse, or just ignoring what the Guidelines say, for a better (read dramatic) retort. Obviously at any website in the world, Administrators have more leeway than users. Just as that aging hippy Jimbo has at WP. Anything else on your mind? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for the [[Conservapedia:Civility|civil]] answer. That has clarified things for me. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 06:49, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I greatly resent users putting me on the spot about what another Sysop does or does not do. First, it isn't fair or polite. Secondly, if the intentions of the user were honorable, in my opinion, they wouldn't seek to make a public scene about it, and might, if they were using good manners, email about it. Is that really so unreasonable? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:03, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::::For the record we (or maybe just myself) didn't put you on the spot, the question was asked of Geo and you chose to respond. And I disagree about the honorable thing, if it is honorable, why not talk about it in public to let others decide. Doing things by email, behind everyone's backs make it seem like someone has something to hide. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well of course you do. But I was addressing Auld Nick. Sorry, we all don't agree with your wiki ways of doing things. It is a software, not a way of life. Your post smacks of Wikipedia bullying, it won't work here. You are now warned. Don't continue this. Take it up with the Sysop in question. Geo, BTW, answered you; "No Action". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::When you say your wiki ways, are you refering to me or Auld Nick again? And am I warned or Auld Nick? What wikipedia bullying tactics am I or Auld Nick using that are so different from you warning to block me or Auld Nick from this wiki? It is very hard to fill in the blanks and figure out what you mean when replies are very cryptic and sarcastic. And I did take it up with the sysop in question (as seen above), I asked Geo for an answer ''after'' he stated "No Action", he never replied. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, sorry to have confused you. By the way, the Sysop in question is RSchlafly, not Geo, not me. We merely attempted to provide answers, for which we have been whipped for. Now, take me seriously, no more on this. You have been given instruction by a Administrator to take it up with the Sysop you were/are complaining about, and told no action will be taken. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:54, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
*In response to the question by Jssr5, the reason for no action is that this is not the appropriate forum to debate tohe actions of a current Sysop. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 22:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-22T20:35:17Z

HeartOfGold: /* Current Alerts */ Adding User:Billwsu

Archive:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/archive 1|01]]

'''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]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

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:Billwsu]]...See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Paternity_test&diff=prev&oldid=172943 here] for example. And [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Jnl001&diff=prev&oldid=172902 here] where the user edits another user's account. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 16:35, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
*I blocked [[user:Etaroced|Etaroced]] because he admitted to being a sockpuppet of tmtoulouse on his userpage. Was this correct to do?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
*:YES! Congratulations! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:47, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
*:I am so mad because i can't block these guys. Who ever is doing this has alot of IPs--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:49, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
*:Ditto [[User_talk:Alfred|Alfred]] and [[User_talk:LSD|LSD]] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:47, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
*:Obviously the same is true with [[User_talk:VirginIP|VirginIP]] and [[User_talk:BlockedIP|BlockedIP]] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:38, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
*:Rather obvious, but look at user [[User_talk:PCP|PCP]] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:33, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
* <s>[[User_talk:Conservateur|Conservateur]] made this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scopes_trial&diff=166184&oldid=159587 edit], which I assumed was an accident, but after I posted a notice to his talk page I saw other warnings about what might other similarly strange edits.</s> [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 20:31, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::In the interest of full disclosure, the above content may have been approved by Andy, though I am not sure why. I certainly don't like Gore, but Gore's results in an election has not been sufficiently linked to the Scopes Trial, and cluttering it up with random political facts seemed strange. I retract the implication of the previous post about Conservateur. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 20:44, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:FaithPlus1|FaithPlus1]] going out of his way to insert BCE into articles, blocked by Niandra for 3 days. His screen name is a reference to a ''South Park'' episode. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:03, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Cullen21|Cullen21]] made inappropriate edits. See [[Karl Rove]]--'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 13:40, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] violates the 90/10 rule and he seems to be to go over the top on conservative issues which makes him look like he really isn't conservative at all, but just pretends to be.--'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]'''
: blocked for a week due to violation of 90/10 rule. Thanks, Adrian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:33, 17 May 2007 (EDT)\

*{{user|Binary42}}, sock of [[User:Linus M.|Linus M.]], seriously. Ask me/him. --[[User:Binary42|Binary42]] 22:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
*:Your name contradicts itself, anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:30, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
*: It's sad that people feel a need for attention like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:45, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*somehow, the user [[User:box|box]]'s page had a category "Worthless Conservapedians" that included everyone. I deleted everything on his page and now it is gone.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

*look at this [[Albania|page]]. Its completly messed up? I dont get it?-[[User:box|Box]] 22:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Oh i made out the writing it spells "icewe"????? -[[User:box|Box]] 22:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Figleaf]] You'll see what I mean when you check up his edits. See Vietnam War and Alexander the Great. You may wish to stop him before he can do more damage. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: Blocked for infinite duration. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Jpatt|jp]] Other than 7 edits to [[Separation of Powers]] of which 3 are simply adding internal links and one is adding a return, this user has made no edits to actual articles. This user has however, made a total of 330 edits to Conservapedia so less than 3% of his edits are to actual pages. This user is in clear violation of the 90/10 rule. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Human|Human]] Declared Conservatives are actually not welcome on this one tiny little corner of CP. Who_will_liberals_support_for_President_in_2008. Liberals can post anywhere Conservatives not allowed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I left him an offer he can't refuse, so I think it will be okay now. BUT please don't taunt the Liberals too much, they completely have no sense of humor when it comes to things political. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:54, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::What JP, fails to mention here, is that this took place on Human’s user page.
::Human asked that users who self identify as conservatives not post on his personal user page asking liberal users who they would support as president but rather to post on his user page asking conservatives who they would support—that seems to be a very reasonable request (which JP chose, knowingly, to ignore). He seems to have been acting under the assumption that his user page was his castle and he could tell people who could post where on it. This doesn’t seem like abuse at all, but rather making a reasonable request that is well in line with the Conservapedia policy that a user has the right to decided how his user page is treated.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Liberal Reg, I am fine with what Human says however, people like you will comment on Republicans even though they are not one. Must be fair all they way around in order for his system to work. Otherwise, you'll have a section of liberal false hoods without rebuttal.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I count at least three errors of fact in your first sentence, allow me to clear them up. My name is neither “Liberal Reg” nor “Reg”, I identify as a Libertarian and not a liberal, and I have not posted to the conservative page and have no plans to do so. The first two are minor mistakes, but the third strikes me as a serious accusation (that I will violate the castle that is another user’s page and that I am a hypocrite). I would ask that you be clear about the facts before you accuse me of anything in the future.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry for offending you nod, first of all 'people like you' doesn't mean you have posted to Republicans. Second of all, all libertarians are just other liberals with a different name. You are defending John Edwards so strongly, yet he's not a libertarian. Who said anything about hypocrite? lighten up. Sysop, are we really allowed to debate here in the abuse forum?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*'''No, this isn't a debate place, and I will be removing such posts here, and cleaning it up later. Let me say this about user pages...your ONE user page and ONE discussion page is your castle. ''You cannot create dozens of other pages, like the political discussion page of Human, and expect to be entitled to the "rights" of your one user page/discussion page "castle"''. Now please move those extra pages, Human, out to the debate page space where they belong, or it will be done for you, and I wouldn't want to be responsible for any data loss, or edit conflicts.''' --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
: And '''this is not the page for personal direct comments''' (user talk pages are), we all are not reading this. (This case of comment to Human fixed by me.) --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|IDidItForIcwdg}} vandal. He is making inappropriate articles. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 19:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 20:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] Posted he was leaving for a while, left attack on CP and other users on page. Blocked two weeks. Pray for his returning rested and positive! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
**It appears that our "castles" are built out of very thin paper... gives me article/essay ideas, though. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 16:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Actually I think Sysops pages are castles, where as normal editors only live in the fields in mud huts. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Cookieman}} - replacing pages with llamas. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:44, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*Blocked by PhillipRayment. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 15:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|SeanTheSheep}} 2nd warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|Favor}} sock of icwdg --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 20:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Proof? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:He has a user box that says AmesG is the leader of conservapedia. And I have been seeing a lot of vandalism on this site that has been saying icwdg thinks AmesG should be unbanned. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 20:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
That's not proof. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:It is easier to block and unblock later than to fix the pages that a person has vandalized. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 21:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::AmesG does a better job of getting himself blocked than any Admin here. He likes the attention, but I agree with DanH, that box isn't much "proof" and check it, several others do, or did, have that same box. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|Sacrificialzeus}} vandalized my user page and other pages. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 15:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Jesuslover143}} vandal. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 15:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
*04:37, 8 May 2007, TK blocked Muschifresser (infinite, account creation blocked) (Parodist/Subtle Vandal: "Owing to their diet of eucalyptus leaves, which contain a volatile oil, Koalas are highly flammable. For this reason, it is recommended to consume them raw in the form of a carpaccio or Koala tartare."Also has sock,LordWhimsey‎ )
*04:38, 8 May 2007, TK blocked LordWhimsey (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Sock of Muschifresser )

*{{alert|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icwdg has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icwdg and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icwdg. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{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)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 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|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|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:Flippin|Flippin]] defaced my user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Auld_Nick&oldid=151416 here] (my castle? [[User_talk:Aschlafly#User_page_a_person.27s_castle.3F|see here]]) also
:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] added to [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]]'s user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ian_St_John&diff=151723&oldid=151721 here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ian_St_John&diff=151726&oldid=151723 here]. (his castle? [[User_talk:Aschlafly#User_page_a_person.27s_castle.3F|see here]]) [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 15:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*{{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)
*16:04, 6 May 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Hacker (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Hacker is a sock of Linus, Hacker is blocked now infinitely)

*{{user|Tomt}} Insubordinate and impolite remark at [[User talk:TK]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
**So I get a warning after I complained to another for making a rude comment about me? This makes no sense... --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 07:41, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
**TK is not "another" but has a higher position than you. I also told you to read [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]] but see no evidence you have done so. Furthermore, this page is not a place to argue about whether you have violated a rule. You are blocked for 36 hours. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
**'''UNBLOCKED''' after successful appeal to Mr. Schlafly. Welcome back! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Harlequin]] made inappropriate edits to bloodhound --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 19:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
**Blocked. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] If you look at his user page he sounds like a parodist. He makes fun of conservapedia articles and says how great this site is. Seems to be a bit over the top if you ask me. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 19:31, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:I blocked him for a week for violating the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] parodist/vandal --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 22:51, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
: blocked for a week due to violation of 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:33, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*All socks. Blocked infinite. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:23, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
#Hope (Latest: 02:38, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 02:36, 9 May 2007) [3]
#Solstace (Latest: 01:46, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:37, 9 May 2007) [2]
#Talk for me (Latest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) [1]
*[[User:Auld Nick]]. In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kilt&diff=152957&oldid=152944 this edit], he added [[:Image:Soldiers wearing Kilts.jpg]], with the edit comment "Image of soldiers in kilts" and the picture caption "Kilted Scottish Soldiers paying respect to their fallen comrades." He does not say in the talk page or in an edit comment why he chose an image in which one soldier's kilt has been lifted by wind to expose part of his bare buttocks. The use of such an image ought to have been discussed in Talk. If the point was to illustrate that kilts are worn without underwear, and if he sincerely thought such an image was appropriate, then the edit comment should have said something like "Image showing that kilts are worn without underwear." Therefore, I consider the edit comment misleading, and that trips my threshold for labeling it as "abuse." Put plainly, it's my opinion that Auld Nick is figuratively mooning Conservapedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT) P. S. Undoubtedly a copyright violation, too, although widely reproduced all over the Net. It appears to be an Associated Press photograph of one Lee Wotherspoon in Hong Kong on April 24, 1997. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for two hours. That'll larn 'im. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Extended to indefinte for sockpuppetry during block. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:51, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 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|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icwdg. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 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 icwdg. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 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:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

* Please investigate [[User:RSchlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
:* I second that. [[User:RSchlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT) This user is a sock of Icwdg and has been blocked.
:::I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is risible IMO. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::This is not the place for insults. Please see my detailed account on [[Talk:Geocentric theory]] before you make such judgements. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Insults? Where? Please don't make random accusatory posts, OfficerDibble, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::"I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is '''risible'''" I take "Risible" to be insulting, since I have worked long and hard to make the points I have on the article. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 05:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, if you object to furious editing of your work, and debate about it, a wiki is the wrong place for you. Your tone borders on the dramatic. If you are into drama, might I suggest working on one of the acting/dramatic arts pages? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*:OfficerDibble and myself have been following the comandments of conservapedia, RSchlafly has been deleting our work with out discussing our valid points. Be even objects to relevent bible verses being included. And the page block prevents us from making any changes. Clearly we are in the right here, as can plainly be seen in the history and talk page of the article. Also I have not been blocked and I am not a "sock of icwdg".[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:'''No Action''' Rschlafly is a Sysop Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::So are we to take this to mean that Sysops have carte blanche and can do whatever they want whenever? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:*You are to take it per the CP Guidelines. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines]] Failure to follow the directions of an Administrator, as to what is, and is not, appropriate behavior/content/actions, is a blockable offense. So is never-ending argument. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, is a simple precise answer such as '''''No''', Sysops do not have carte blanche and cannot do whatever they want whenever they want'' to much to ask? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

*When you leave your glass house, Auld Nick, perhaps you would make a better spokesperson for transparency and short comments. Either you are completely obtuse, or just ignoring what the Guidelines say, for a better (read dramatic) retort. Obviously at any website in the world, Administrators have more leeway than users. Just as that aging hippy Jimbo has at WP. Anything else on your mind? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for the [[Conservapedia:Civility|civil]] answer. That has clarified things for me. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 06:49, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I greatly resent users putting me on the spot about what another Sysop does or does not do. First, it isn't fair or polite. Secondly, if the intentions of the user were honorable, in my opinion, they wouldn't seek to make a public scene about it, and might, if they were using good manners, email about it. Is that really so unreasonable? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:03, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::::For the record we (or maybe just myself) didn't put you on the spot, the question was asked of Geo and you chose to respond. And I disagree about the honorable thing, if it is honorable, why not talk about it in public to let others decide. Doing things by email, behind everyone's backs make it seem like someone has something to hide. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well of course you do. But I was addressing Auld Nick. Sorry, we all don't agree with your wiki ways of doing things. It is a software, not a way of life. Your post smacks of Wikipedia bullying, it won't work here. You are now warned. Don't continue this. Take it up with the Sysop in question. Geo, BTW, answered you; "No Action". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::When you say your wiki ways, are you refering to me or Auld Nick again? And am I warned or Auld Nick? What wikipedia bullying tactics am I or Auld Nick using that are so different from you warning to block me or Auld Nick from this wiki? It is very hard to fill in the blanks and figure out what you mean when replies are very cryptic and sarcastic. And I did take it up with the sysop in question (as seen above), I asked Geo for an answer ''after'' he stated "No Action", he never replied. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, sorry to have confused you. By the way, the Sysop in question is RSchlafly, not Geo, not me. We merely attempted to provide answers, for which we have been whipped for. Now, take me seriously, no more on this. You have been given instruction by a Administrator to take it up with the Sysop you were/are complaining about, and told no action will be taken. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:54, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
*In response to the question by Jssr5, the reason for no action is that this is not the appropriate forum to debate tohe actions of a current Sysop. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 22:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Paternity test

2007-05-22T20:28:01Z

HeartOfGold: Reverting what appears to be a bad faith edit

A '''paternity test''' is used to ascertain who is the [[father]] of another person. It is frequently done by [[DNA]] analysis of the [[mother]], [[child]], and the possible father. Since a person's DNA is the same in all of their cells, DNA testing can be done with a [[blood]] sample, a swab of [[skin]], or a lock of [[hair]]. A comparison of one's DNA sequence to someone else's will show if either of them is the parent of the other.

Zheng He

2007-05-22T20:02:23Z

HeartOfGold: space (The admitted sock's edit on this page was good...no comment on others)

'''Zheng He''' (1405–1433) was a [[Muslim]] admiral to the Ming dynasty of China. He took trips from [[China]] to [[India]] and the [[Middle East]]. Some have claimed that he even traveled to [[Africa]] on his voyages. However, historians more commonly give credit to the idea that Zheng's fleet reached the Americas rather than Africa.

== References ==

Gavin Menzies, "1421: The Year China Discovered America". Harper Perennial, 2004.

[[Category:China]]

Ohm's Law

2007-05-22T19:23:21Z

HeartOfGold: Order of variables

'''Ohm's law''' is a mathematical relationship of three variables in an electronic circuit containing a resistive element. It states that the voltage across a resistive element is equal to the current passing through the resistive element times the resistance of the resistive element.

In mathematical terms, this is written as:
:<math>V = I*R</math>

Where
:V: Voltage across resistive element
:I: Current through resistive element
:R: Resistance of resistive element

Ohms law

2007-05-22T19:22:59Z

HeartOfGold: Redirect to Ohm's law

#REDIRECT [[Ohm's law]]

Ohm's Law

2007-05-22T19:22:25Z

HeartOfGold: Rewriting

'''Ohm's law''' is a mathematical relationship of three variables in an electronic circuit containing a resistive element. It states that the voltage across a resistive element is equal to the current passing through the resistive element times the resistance of the resistive element.

In mathematical terms, this is written as:
:<math>V = I*R</math>

Where
:I: Current through resistive element
:V: Voltage across resistive element
:R: Resistance of resistive element

Ohm's Law

2007-05-22T19:21:14Z

HeartOfGold: Redoing formula

'''Ohm's law''' is a mathematical relationship of three variables in an electronic circuit containing a resistive element. It states that the current passing through a resistive element is proportional to the voltage across the resistive element and inversely proportional to the resistance of the resistive element.

In mathematical terms, this is written as:
:<math>V = I*R</math>

Where
:I: Current through resistive element
:V: Voltage across resistive element
:R: Resistance of resistive element

Ohm's Law

2007-05-22T19:20:45Z

HeartOfGold: New article for Ohm's law

'''Ohm's law''' is a mathematical relationship of three variables in an electronic circuit containing a resistive element. It states that the current passing through a resistive element is proportional to the voltage across the resistive element and inversely proportional to the resistance of the resistive element.

In mathematical terms, this is written as:
:<math>I = \frac VR</math>

Where
:I: Current through resistive element
:V: Voltage across resistive element
:R: Resistance of resistive element

Application specific integrated circuit

2007-05-22T19:05:22Z

HeartOfGold: Redirect to ASIC

#REDIRECT [[ASIC]]

ASIC

2007-05-22T19:04:59Z

HeartOfGold: Bolding subject

'''ASIC''' is the acronym for '''A'''pplication '''s'''pecific '''i'''ntegrated '''c'''ircuit, and is an integrated circuit designed for a specific and often proprietary purpose.

ASIC

2007-05-22T19:04:47Z

HeartOfGold: Article on ASIC

ASIC is the acronym for '''A'''pplication '''s'''pecific '''i'''ntegrated '''c'''ircuit, and is an integrated circuit designed for a specific and often proprietary purpose.

Microprocessor

2007-05-22T18:57:09Z

HeartOfGold: Redirect to CPU

#REDIRECT [[CPU]]

CPU

2007-05-22T18:56:40Z

HeartOfGold: Microprocessor

'''CPU''' is an acronym that stands for Central Processing Unit, also called a microprocessor. A CPU is a digital integrated circuit capbable of executing instructions (program) and performing calculations.

== External links ==
*[http://computer.howstuffworks.com/microprocessor.htm How Microprocessors Work]

I²C

2007-05-22T18:50:34Z

HeartOfGold: /* External links */ Another link

'''I2C''' is a multi-master serial communications protocol devolped by Philips.

== External links ==
* [http://www.nxp.com/acrobat_download/literature/9398/39340011.pdf Philips I2C specification in pdf format]
* [http://www.i2c-bus.org/ Website dedicated to providing detailed information on Philips' I2C bus]

I²C

2007-05-22T18:49:18Z

HeartOfGold: Bolding article subject

I2C

2007-05-22T18:49:02Z

HeartOfGold: Redirecting to main article

#REDIRECT [[I²C]]

I²C

2007-05-22T18:48:34Z

HeartOfGold: Article on I2C protocol

I2C is a multi-master serial communications protocol devolped by Philips.

== External links ==
* [http://www.nxp.com/acrobat_download/literature/9398/39340011.pdf Philips I2C specification in pdf format]

JPEG

2007-05-22T18:45:08Z

HeartOfGold: grammar

'''JPEG''' has multiple meanings, all related to a compression standard for digitized photographic images. First, it is the acronym that stands for '''J'''oint '''P'''hotographic '''E'''xperts '''G'''roup, the committee that created the JPEG standard. Commonly, JPEG usually refers to images compressed with the compression algorithm specified in JPEG standards. JPEG images are usually compressed using a lossy compression algorithm, but lossles JPEG compression is also specified. JPEG images most often have a .jpg file extension.

== External links ==
*[http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/itu-t81.pdf JPEG Standard (JPEG ISO/IEC 10918-1 ITU-T Recommendation T.81) in PDF format] or as [http://www.digicamsoft.com/itu/itu-t81-1.html HTML format]

JPEG

2007-05-22T18:44:39Z

HeartOfGold: Grammar

'''JPEG''' has multiple meanings, all related to a compression standard for digitized photographic images. First, it is the acronym that stands for '''J'''oint '''P'''hotographic '''E'''xperts '''G'''roup, the committee that created the JPEG standard. Commonly, JPEG usually refers to images compressed with the a compression algorithm specified in JPEG standards. JPEG images are usually compressed using a lossy compression algorithm, but lossles JPEG compression is also specified. JPEG images most often have a .jpg file extension.

== External links ==
*[http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/itu-t81.pdf JPEG Standard (JPEG ISO/IEC 10918-1 ITU-T Recommendation T.81) in PDF format] or as [http://www.digicamsoft.com/itu/itu-t81-1.html HTML format]

JPEG

2007-05-22T18:44:16Z

HeartOfGold: Reworking

'''JPEG''' has multiple meanings, all related to a compression standard for digitized photographic images. First, it is the acronym that stands, '''J'''oint '''P'''hotographic '''E'''xperts '''G'''roup, the committee that created the JPEG standard. Commonly, JPEG usually refers to images compressed with the a compression algorithm specified in JPEG standards. JPEG images are usually compressed using a lossy compression algorithm, but lossles JPEG compression is also specified. JPEG images most often have a .jpg file extension.

== External links ==
*[http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/itu-t81.pdf JPEG Standard (JPEG ISO/IEC 10918-1 ITU-T Recommendation T.81) in PDF format] or as [http://www.digicamsoft.com/itu/itu-t81-1.html HTML format]

JPEG

2007-05-22T18:39:51Z

HeartOfGold: clarification

'''JPEG''' is an acronym that stands for words in the name of the name of the committee who created the standard, '''J'''oint '''P'''hotographic '''E'''xperts '''G'''roup. Commonly, JPEG usually refers to images compressed with the a compression algorithm specified in JPEG standards. JPEG images are usually compressed using a lossy compression algorithm, but lossles JPEG compression is also specified. JPEG images most often have a .jpg file extension.

== External links ==
*[http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/itu-t81.pdf JPEG Standard (JPEG ISO/IEC 10918-1 ITU-T Recommendation T.81) in PDF format] or as [http://www.digicamsoft.com/itu/itu-t81-1.html HTML format]

JPEG

2007-05-22T18:38:53Z

HeartOfGold: More on lossy/lossless

'''JPEG''' is an acronym that stands for words in the name of the name of the committee who created the standard, '''J'''oint '''P'''hotographic '''E'''xperts '''G'''roup. Commonly, JPEG usually refers to images compressed with the a compression algorithm. JPEG images are usually compressed using a lossy compression algorithm, but lossles JPEG compression is also specified. JPEG images most often have a .jpg file extension.

== External links ==
*[http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/itu-t81.pdf JPEG Standard (JPEG ISO/IEC 10918-1 ITU-T Recommendation T.81) in PDF format] or as [http://www.digicamsoft.com/itu/itu-t81-1.html HTML format]

JPEG

2007-05-22T18:35:58Z

HeartOfGold: New article on JPEG

'''JPEG''' is an acronym that stands for words in the name of the name of the committee who created the standard, '''J'''oint '''P'''hotographic '''E'''xperts '''G'''roup. Commonly, JPEG is meant to refer to images compressed with the a usually lossy compression algorithm. JPEG images most often have a .jpg file extension.

== External links ==
*[http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/itu-t81.pdf JPEG Standard (JPEG ISO/IEC 10918-1 ITU-T Recommendation T.81) in PDF format] or as [http://www.digicamsoft.com/itu/itu-t81-1.html HTML format]

Category talk:Elements

2007-05-22T17:45:54Z

HeartOfGold: On merging

This should probably be renamed to "Chemical elements", since "elements" could mean earth/wind/fire/water, anything that's any part of a set. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 01:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== On merging ==

To discuss the merging of this category with Elements, please take the discussion to [[Category_talk:Element|Element]] instead. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 13:45, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Category:Elements

2007-05-22T17:44:37Z

HeartOfGold: {{merge|Category:Element}}

{{merge|Category:Element}}
Elements of the [[Periodic Table]].

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Category:Elements

2007-05-22T17:43:58Z

HeartOfGold: {{merge|Category:Elements}}

{{merge|Category:Elements}}
Elements of the [[Periodic Table]].

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Category talk:Element

2007-05-22T17:41:29Z

HeartOfGold: Why the singular?

I agree. Please merge the "Element" and "Elements" categories together. [[User:Niandra|Niandra]][[User_talk:Niandra|talk]] 06:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I also agree, but please use the title 'Element' (singular) if it is done. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 12:45, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree, but tend to agree with the plural. TomT, why the singular? [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 13:41, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Sodium

2007-05-22T17:37:19Z

HeartOfGold: Bolding sodium per discussion with CScience

{{Element | name=Sodium | symbol=Na | anumber=11 | amass=22.99 amu | noe=11 | class=Alkali metal | cstructure=Body-Centered Cubic | color=Silver | date=1807 | discname=[[Davy, Sir Humphrey ]] | origname=From the Latin ''Natrium'' | uses=important biological role, and used in numerous industrial processes | obtained=halite, trona }}
'''Sodium''' is an element<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>in the Alkali metals class of the periodic table. It is so chemically active that it is never found free (in elemental form) in nature. In its elemental form, it reacts violently with water, forming sodium hydroxide and [[hydrogen]] gas.

Its existence as salt (sodium chloride), "soda ash" or "mineral alkali" (sodium carbonate), lye or "caustic soda" (sodium hydroxide), etc., had long been known, but it was not isolated as an element until 1807, by Sir Humphrey Davy.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Elements]]

Whale

2007-05-22T17:10:26Z

HeartOfGold: /* Whales in the Bible */ Removing commentary inserted as a foot note (Find a source for this, and add it back in the article itself, citing the source in the footnote)

[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|thumb|400px]]
'''Whale''' is a marine mammals, the [[Cetacea|Cetaceans]].

Living whales are seperated into the toothed whales (which includes [[dolphin]]s, [[porpoise]]s, [[narwhal]]s, [[beaked whale]]s and [[sperm whale]]s) and the whalebone whales; those (mostly very large) cetaceans which have teeth replaced by baleen (whalebone) to filter small prey from the water, which are what people generally think of when the word whale is used. The whalebone whales include the rorquals - the [[blue whale]], fin whale, sei whale, Bryde's whale, [[minke whale]], [[grey whale]]; the [[humpback whale]]; and the various [[right whale]]s.

Although whales are famed for the massive size reached by some species, such as the blue whale (the largest animal to ever live), others are relatively small like the pygmy right whale which grows to about 20 feet <ref> [http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/PygmyRightWhale.htm]American Cetacean Society website</ref>. Though whales have many traits in common with fish (including fins and tails) they are in fact [[mammal|mammals]] and accordingly breath air and lactate. Whales have a number of remarkable [[adaptation|adaptations]] including:

* they decide when to breathe, rather than breathing unconsciously

* they sleep 8 hours a day, yet need to be conscious to breathe

* they can communicate with each other by making remarkably loud noises

* these extraordinary noises can travel for miles under water

* the females nurse their calves while swimming underwater

* the males have a unique cooling system for their internal reproductive organs

* some have two blow-holes, but others only have one

* the blow-holes pass air above water, yet resist intense pressure underwater

* they have massive brains, much larger than the brains of other mammals

* Whales along with Humans and horses are some of the few mammal species that do not possess baculum

== Evolution and taxonomy ==
The question of how whales and their relatives could have evolved from terrestrial [[mammal|mammals]] has taxed evolutionary biologists since [[Darwin|Darwin's]] suggestion that they may have evolved from ancient bears. In more recent times molecular and fossil evidence has combined to suggest that modern whales and their relatives arose from ancient [[Artiodactyla|artiodactyls]] (even-toed ungulates) with the closest living relative of all whales being hippos<ref>[http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/41080/molecular_clock_divergence_estimates_and_the_fossil_record_of_cetartiodactyla/index.html] Theodore, JM (2004) Molecular Clock Divergence Estimates And The Fossil Record Of Cetartiodactyla The Journal Of Paleontology 78:39-44</ref>. This kinship has been termed the whippo hypothesis. Evolutionary biologists estimate the last ancestor of whales and hippos lived about 25 million years ago <ref> [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml] UCLA Berkley Understanding Evolution for Teachers website</ref>, which is contrast with the [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationist]] position that that whales were [[creation|created]] about 6000 years ago when [[God]] created the [[earth]]. Other creationists are not convinced that the available fossil evidence supports the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]] but make no reference to the corroborating molecular evidence. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp</ref>
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp</ref>
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp</ref>

== Whales in the Bible ==

The great fish that swallowed [[Jonah (prophet)|Jonah]],
<blockquote>
''Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.'' Jonah 1:17
</blockquote>
is often regarded as being a whale. [[Great white shark]]s are also present in the [[Mediterranean Sea]], offering an alternative swallower that is a true fish.

== Whales in literature ==

Arguably the most famous book about whales is [[Herman Melville]]'s ''[[Moby-Dick|Moby Dick]]'', about sperm-whaling.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Marine mammals]]

Michael Chertoff

2007-05-22T14:26:16Z

HeartOfGold: {{DEFAULTSORT: Chertoff, Michael}}

[[Image:Chertoff.jpg|right|frame]]
'''Michael Chertoff''' (born November 28, 1953) is the United States Secretary of Homeland Security including jurisdiction over FEMA for national disaster management. He previously served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals, as a federal prosecutor, and as assistant U.S. Attorney General. Michael Chertoff's father Rabbi Gershon Baruch Chertoff, was the former leader of the B'nai [[Israel]] Congregation in Elizabeth, and El Al flight attendant Livia Chertoff. His grandfather was a Talmudic scholar.

==See Also==
:[http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/biography_0116.shtm Department of Homeland Security biography]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Chertoff, Michael}}
[[category:political people]]

Michael Chertoff

2007-05-22T14:25:44Z

HeartOfGold:

[[Image:Chertoff.jpg|right|frame]]
'''Michael Chertoff''' (born November 28, 1953) is the United States Secretary of Homeland Security including jurisdiction over FEMA for national disaster management. He previously served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals, as a federal prosecutor, and as assistant U.S. Attorney General. Michael Chertoff's father Rabbi Gershon Baruch Chertoff, was the former leader of the B'nai [[Israel]] Congregation in Elizabeth, and El Al flight attendant Livia Chertoff. His grandfather was a Talmudic scholar.

==See Also==
:[http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/biography_0116.shtm Department of Homeland Security biography]
{{DEFAULTSORT: Chertoff, Michael}}
[[category:political people]]

Roman Catholic Church

2007-05-22T14:19:36Z

HeartOfGold: /* Catholics as Christians */ Trying to make potentially controversial contribution more diplomatically stated.

The '''Catholic Church''' is, literally, the ''Universal Church'' of [[Jesus Christ]] (from the Greek ''katholikos'', "universal"). The [[Roman Catholic Church]] is headed by the pope, the bishop of Rome, currently [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. It is one of the largest religions in the world, with more than 1 billion adherents (In the United States more than 64 million.) The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. The Roman Catholic faith teaches the Pope is the successor of [[Saint Peter]].

To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord [[Jesus Christ]]. ''"The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the [[Virgin Mary]] and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten." '' <ref> [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ro/RomanCat.html The Columbia Encyclopedia]</ref> The presence of Christ is believed to be present in the Eucharist, the bread and wine is Jesus himself. Another essential belief is the veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary and veneration of the saints.

The principal sources for the essential beliefs of the Catholic Church are the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible), Sacred Tradition, and Living Magisterium of the Church.

The term Catholic is frequently applied to the Roman Catholic Church, though many Protestants object to Roman Catholics monopolizing the term "Catholic". Conversely, many Roman Catholics dislike the adjective "Roman" because it implies, contrary to (Roman) Catholic doctrine, that their church is not ''the'' universal Church of Christ.

[[Image:Cathpop.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Catholics in the world.]]

== History ==

According to Catholic claims, the original Christian community was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and led by the Apostles. St. [[Paul|Paul the Apostle]] was, together with [[Saint Peter]], the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. After an initial period of persecution, Christianity was legalized in the fourth century by Constantine I. In 380, Emperor Theodosius I accepted Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the [[Roman Empire]]. During the [[Middle Ages]] the Church underwent a time of missionary activity and expansion. This Catholic Christian Church underwent in 1054 a great schism that divided the Church into a Western (Latin) branch, which has been called as the Catholic Church and an Eastern branch, which has become known as the [[Orthodox Church]]. The second schism was the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. During the First Vatican Council (1869–1870) and the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) the Catholic Church undertook the most comprehensive reforms. She stretched relations with other Christian communities and other religions. She also issued directions for a revision of the liturgy.

==Different churches==

The term "The Catholic Church" refers to any one of several Rites, but in the United States is often used synonymously for the largest Rite, the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Other Rites include the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean Rites. Some Eastern rites have significant differences in liturgy, history, discipline and hierarchy from the Roman Catholic Church, but still recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and are in communion with Rome. These Eastern Rite churches are Catholic and do not belong to the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]].

The Eastern branches do not have a single umbrella organization. They include the Eastern Orthodox Church and a number of Eastern Catholic Churches. Despite important differences in doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern churches recognize each other as part of the universal, or Catholic Church. For example, each of them accepts each others' Holy Orders (priesthood) as valid.

The Roman Catholic Church historically regarded [[Protestant]] Christianity as heretical, that is, being against Roman doctrine. However, this changed in the 1960's when Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council, where '''the''' '''doors of the Church were opened wide''', and Protestants referred to as '''"our separated brethren".''' This was an exciting period for Catholics and Protestants alike as moves were made to bring the separated churches back together.

[[Image:JpII.jpg|right|thumb|John Paul II]]

The Anglican Church (Episcopalian in the United States) occupies an odd situation, because it encompasses within it factions ("Low Church") that emphasize its Protestant aspects and factions ("High Church") that emphasize its Catholic aspects. Anglo-Catholics regard the Anglican church as part of the Catholic Church, and in the unbroken line of the Apostolic Succession. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern branches take a position that could be described as saying that the Anglican Church is almost but not quite Catholic. There have long been unification overtures, and Anglican priests who wish to adopt Catholic Holy Orders are often provided with an abbreviated path to that goal.

The [[Nicene Creed]], the great historical statement of Christian belief, contains the line "I [or we] believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church". The [[Apostles' Creed]] contains a similar affirmation. However, Protestants and Catholics place different interpretations on the term "universal", or "catholic". Protestants believe that it refers to the general, over-arching spiritual unity of all Christian believers, Jew or gentile, which transcends individual churches and denominations. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the [[Roman Catholic Church]], as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church in which their is neither Jew nor gentile. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.

== Saint Paul's Writings ==

[[Paul|St. Paul]] is the second most prolific contributor to the [[New Testament]]. Thirteen letters are attributed to him and fully known as the "Catholic (or Universal) Epistles of Paul". The letters are written in Greek. The epistles contain the basis of Christian doctrine, interpretation and commentary from earlier scriptures. They are full of expositions of what Christians should believe and how they should live.

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

''St. Paul reminded the Christians how they should live. They should think about the things in heaven (Colossians 3:2), because they belong with Christ (Colossians 3:3-4). They should not do evil deeds (Colossians 3:5-11). Instead, they should love other people (Colossians 3:12-14). And they should serve God (Colossians 3:15-17). If we invite Jesus into our lives, we will become friends of God (Colossians 1:15-23).'' </blockquote>

St. Paul's influence on Christian thinking has been more significant than any other single New Testament author.

== Fathers ==

St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan from 374 to 397, was one of the most illustrious Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and fitly chosen, together with St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Athanasius, to uphold the venerable Chair of the Prince of the Apostles in the tribune of St. Peter's at Rome. <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm St. Ambrose] Catholic Encyclopedia.</ref>
 

==Controversy==
[[Image:Cerro_de_Angeles.jpg|right|thumb|Cerro de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain.]]
There has been much controversy in recent years about Catholic priests in relation to the abuse of children in their care. Cases of pedophilia and ephebophilia have both been discovered in many churches across the world<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex.htm</ref>. Many instances of abuse occurred with little or no repercussion for priests involved. In some cases, bishops were aware of the abuse but did not effectively deal with it, allowing the abusive priest to continue to remain in contact with minors.

== Catholics as Christians ==
Catholics are not regarded as Christians by some Christian websites, and are only notable as a sub-sect of Christianity.<ref>http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Vatican City]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]

==External links==
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

*[http://tcrnews2.com/VaticanCouncil2.html The Reasons for the Second Vatican Council]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/vonbalthasarfathers.html The Fathers, the Scholastics, and Ourselves ]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/predestination.html Ruminating on Laughter, Predestination, Mystery ]
*[http://www.cua.edu/ The Catholic University of America] Washington, D. C.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm St. Paul] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://tcrnews2.com/Marykerygma05.html Mary is not the Kerygma]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/RFK_daughter.html Kathleen Kennedy Townsend: Failing America's Faithful]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/ChristNietzscheIslam.html A Civilization Without the Influence of Jesus Christ]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/Birds_Trojan.html Birds of a Feather and Trojan Horse Islam]
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Christianity]]

Vasili Mitrokhin

2007-05-22T14:11:53Z

HeartOfGold: /* Biography */ fixing wikilink

'''Vasili Mitrokhin''' (March 3, 1922–January 23, 2004) is a former KGB officer who defected from [[Russia]]. He was exfiltrated from Russia in 1992 by the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS). Mitrokhin was accompanied by his family and 6 cases representing twelve years of daily note taking of KGB files going back as far as 1918.
== Biography ==
Vasili Mitrokhin was born in central Russia in 1922. He began his career as an intelligence officer in 1948 working for the Committee of Information--the temporarily combined MGB (future KGB) and GRU (Soviet military intelligence).<ref>{{hnb|Andrew & Mitronkhin|1999|Ref=CITEREFAndrewMitrokhin1999|p=1}}</ref> His first five years in intelligence were during the final paranoid years of Stalin's dictatorship, when intelligence agencies were enjoined to conduct investigations against usually imaginary [[Tito|Titoist]] and Zionist conspiracies. <ref>{{hnb|Andrew & Mitronkhin|1999|Ref=CITEREFAndrewMitrokhin1999|p=1-2}}</ref>

Mitrokhin tried twice to defect to the CIA, but was turned down each time because the CIA wanted to "maintain high moral ground" by not recruiting KGB defecters.<ref>{{hnb|Trulock|2004}}</ref> Subsequently, he turned to the SIS, who exfiltrated Mitrokhin from [[Latvia]], including his family, and 6 cases of notes on KGB files.<ref>{{hnb|Andrew & Mitronkhin|1999|Ref=CITEREFAndrewMitrokhin1999|p=1}}, {{hnb|Trulock|2004}}, {{hnb|AP|2004}}</ref>

Vasili Mitrokhin died of pneumonia on January 23, 2004, at the age of 81.<ref>{{hnb|Trulock|2004}}</ref>

== Mitrokhin Archive ==
== References ==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Andrew
| Given1 = Christopher
| Surname2 = Mitrokhin
| Given2 = Vasili
| Year = 1999
| Title = The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB
| Publisher = Basic Books
| ID = ISBN 0-465-00310-9
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = AP
| Given = Associated Press
| Year = 2004
| Date = 2004-01-30
| Title = Vasili Mitrokhin dies at 81
| Publisher = The Guardian
| URL = http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1134760,00.html
}} Retrieved on 05-18-2007
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Trulock
| Given = Notra
| Year = 2004
| Date = 2004-03-03
| Title = Vasili Mitrokhin Is Dead
| Publisher = Accuracy in Media
| URL = http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/03/03.html
}} Retrieved on 05-18-2007


{{DEFAULTSORT:Mitrokhin, Vasili}}
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Espionage]]
[[Category:KGB]]

Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages

2007-05-22T14:08:25Z

HeartOfGold: /* DEFAULTSORT */

==Only for Americans?==

I am a conservative christian, but being a conservative, bible-believing christian does NOT automatically make you an American, and vice versa. One of my only qualms regarding this website is the fact that is biased towards America/ns. I don't think it's fair that any articles that I write can be edited so that they use only American spelling, but I'm not allowed to change spelling anywhere in any entry. Maybe I'm nit-picking a bit here.
Anyway, I just think that this project should be garnered towards christians all over the globe - not just in the US!--[[User:Catherine Morland|Catherine Morland]] 17:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Conservapedia was started by a group of patriotic Americans, so please forgive any pro american bias. We want spelling to be consistent throughout the site, so we ask that Aamerican spelling be used. you can fix spelling errors anywhere you want, as long as you are not britishizing or otherwise changing american spellings that you might disagree with. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Spell-checker==

I don't think ''everyone'' has an in-browser spell-checker. Internet Explorer does not offer it. To my knowledge, it is only equipped to Mozilla Firefox browsers. The same is the case with the Google tool bar. I think we should reword it. I have no suggestion on how to state it, but I'm sure we will come up with something. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:it's the ABC/check on the Google toolbar.--[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 00:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Too bad there is not a fact checker too, or maybe a translation from 3rd grade level writing to high school level writing. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::That would certainly be helpful. Look into that :). --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:There are spell checkers for [http://www.iespell.com/ Explorer], [http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/opera/spellcheck/ Opera], and [http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/ Firefox/Mozilla]. I'm not sure how up-to-date they are (saved those links a good while ago), but it's a start. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Firefox 2.0 comes with a built-in spelling checker and it should be changed to read that you should just update Firefox to the latest version to get a spelling checker. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 02:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

There is a free spelling checker which is MediaWiki compatible. A friend of mine installed it on another wiki. (Till then, I use TextPad's spellcheck; the only problem with that, is markup like double brackets get flagged as errors.)

Another solution, used successfully in Wikipedia's early days, is to post a list of commonly misspelled words. Then users ([[wiki-gnome]]s) can [[search]] for articles containing the misspelled words. I was part of this spell-check project "back in the day". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Use correct spelling as often as possible." How about "always use correct spelling"? Here's a hint I use whenever I get my i's and e's mixed up - paste your text into whatever program you have handy (like Word) that ''has'' a spellchecker. See how it flies. Fix it. Copy and paste it back into the edit box. Voila! Oh, there's another way to go, too. Ask someone who is a better speller than you if you are in doubt. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Or use Firefox w/ its built in spellchecker! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Wikis as sources ==

Does this rule also apply to "External Links" (and "Further Reading"), or only to inline references? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I would hope it doesn't. As long as a primary source for inline references aren't wikis, that should increase credibility. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 07:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==''Always'' use AD and BC?==
That reads as if all years are to an era designation. Are we supposed to use AD 2007 when referring to current events? Whenever I sign something...
:[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
am I expected to go back in and edit it to read
:[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:06, 30 March AD 2007 (EDT)?
I doubt it.

I think this needs some wordsmithing, and propose this substitute language:

:In dates, if it is necessary for clarity to show the era of the year, use the designations BC and AD (not the substitutes BCE and CE).

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:12, 30 March AD 2007 (EDT)

How is it now? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 15:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fine. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Date format ==

Why do we have the preference for the date style "July 4, 1776", when the wiki software can automatically convert dates to the users' preferences? All it takes is for dates to be written in the form <nowiki>[[4 July]] [[1776]] ''OR'' [[July 4]] [[1776]]</nowiki> and the software ''should'' display them in the user's preferred format. The user preference page[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Preferences] Date and Time tab allows one to set the preferred format, but it seems as though the conversion ability has not been switched on in Conservapedia. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:...no. The preferences don't do that, I think. They change how we see the date and time in pages like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&action=history this article's history]. Go check it out, it works. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:40, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Reading further into it, I see what you mean. Hm... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Ah, after some checking, I assume you mean [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_dates this] config setting (linking it here so the webmaster doesn't have to look)? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, that's it. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that the user's date preferences are ''only'' for this, however. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Use correct spelling as often as possible. ==

Sweet thought. This protected article seems to be warm and fuzzy about illiteracy.--[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 02:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== On plurals in titles ==

There seem to be a large number of articles where the text of the article is in the plural form of the word. [[Arteries]], [[Bills of credit]], [[Biofuels]], [[Catholics]], etc... The wiki software makes it easy to work with singular form [[biofuel]]s is written as <nowiki>[[biofuel]]s</nowiki> (do realize that at the time of this writing, there is no biofuel article). Shouldn't this be rectified and part of the manual of style to write the article about the singular form rather than the plural form? It would simplify many redirects. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:You mean the ''title'' of the article, but yes, I agree entirely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Capitalisation of titles ==

In line with the comments above about plurals in titles, I believe that we should have titles in lowercase (except for proper nouns, of course). At the moment, if we want to link to an article about biblical parables, we have to include the link as <nowiki>[[Biblical Parables|biblical parables]], where we should be able to just link to [[biblical parables]].</nowiki> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== What about punctuation? ==

Should we be using "American" punctuation? For example, usually a comma or period goes within quotes in American usage, and outside of quotes in British usage. Albeit, people's grammar in on-line contexts is often deplorable, and Conservapedia is no exception. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*One would suppose either is correct, depending on where the contributor is from. Since we have dropped the restriction about using only American-English, how would enforcing American punctuation work? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article subjects==

I noticed that throughout the website on shorter articles, the subject of the article is not written in bold text upon first mention. I suggest adding this to the Manual of Style as this makes the article slightly easier to understand. [[User:Scriabin|Scriabin]] 01:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Thats probably laziness on the author's(my) part. I'll stand behind it though.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:24, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Citation Style==

Is there a preferred style for writing citations that are more substantial than URLs? I could write up a quick guide on Turabian or APA, if anyone wants. Or it could be incorporated into the MoS. Using an established style for reference lists and bibliographies will help researchers and make the site look better, improving the appearance of reliability. (I make no promises about reliability in fact!)--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Here you go, AllFishWelcome, have a look around, and the the style project page and the one about footnotes.

Citing Sources and Using Footnotes
Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. Please do not cite wikis as sources, except when specifically talking about that wiki.

'''Please also see: Conservapedia: footnotes - technical help''' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:The technical help page only addresses the wiki markup used to make footnotes. It says nothing about the style to be used. I've seen everything from unadorned URLs to ornate (and incorrect) academic-style citations.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well then, perhaps you could be specific, and suggest how it be done. I am not adverse to learning, Fish. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I wrote a little bit about citation styles [[User:All Fish Welcome/Writing Guide|here]]. I'm about 70% content with my recommendations. I'd still like a better way to separate content notes from reference notes. I've been thinking about it and haven't come up with a satisfactory solution yet.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 03:11, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Can I edit this article? ==

I have some great suggestions, for instance, on how to create an article, that make the "web" of CP better, rather than a series of isolated stubs. I guess I could hash them out here, but it's easier to just put them in the article itself. Anyone seriously object? [[User:Human|Human]] 01:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Firefox link ==

What about altering the links to the direct download pages? I think "[http://www.getfirefox.com]" would be the more appropriate page for that download. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 05:35, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks. I've added the Firefox link. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Comprehension level? ==

What is the target comprehension level for this site? Is there a template to use for when articles are completely filled with jargon that is otherwise unreadable? Who is responsible for rewriting the material (in particular technical articles - personally, I don't have the background to be able to understand the jargon of economics and I know others lack the deep computer jargon that I am familiar with) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:According to [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:From that one can only conclude that since [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] is a [[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysop]] his demands are now policy. Please don't delete Comprehension. See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Tims&diff=141480&oldid=140676 here].
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Persons ==

Shouldn't <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT: Sirname, Given Middle}}</nowiki> be <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:</nowiki> '''Surname''', '''Christian''' Middle<nowiki>}}</nowiki> in a pro-Christian encyclopedia? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 10:26, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:Perhaps, but the manual is describing how to sort more than just individuals who have been baptized into the Christian faith. Even so, you're welcome to bring this to the attention of sysops in good faith. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 12:19, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::Isn't that just another example of the [[liberal bias]] we'd expect from [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]? Being a Christian project we should use Christian terminology. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You're welcome to bring this to the attention of sysops who may agree with you. However, as I pointed out, not all of the individuals who have articles on CP have been baptized into the Christian faith. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 12:33, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== DEFAULTSORT ==

According to [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Categories#Default_sort_key this], DEFAULTSORT is a new feature of the Wiki software from version 1.10, whereas Conservapedia is currently using version 1.9.3. Or am I missing something? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:I don't understand this either. It is working here on conservapedia, and also <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT: biography}}</nowiki> is also working (RobS has been using this alternative method). [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 10:08, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Fruit of the poisonous tree

2007-05-22T14:05:36Z

HeartOfGold: /* See also */ Explanations

'''Fruit of the poisonous tree''' is a legal term in the United States that allows evidence that is obtained illegally (often unconstitutionally), as well as subsequent evidence legally obtained if said evidence was only made available via the illegally obtained evidence, to be ruled inadmissible in a court of law. It is also called the exclusionary rule. In the United States, defendents may make a motion to suppress such evidence, which means that the defendant is asking the trial judge to rule such evidence inadmissable during his or her trial.

For example, if a suspect has a confession beat out of him, and during the course of that confession, details to authorities to the location of a victim's body, and the authorities obtain a search warrant and recover the body, neither the confession nor the body can be used against the suspect in criminal proceedings.

== Exceptions ==
Evidence may not be suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine if:
#It was discovered through an untainted and independant source.
#It would have eventually been discovered through untainted sources.
== Origins ==
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is related to the exclusionary rule, which finds its origins in [[Weeks v. United States|Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)]], a case argued before the Supreme Court on December 2-3, 1913, and ultimately, the Bill of Rights. In Weeks v. United States, Justice William R. Day overturned Weeks's conviction because the evidence used against him at trial was obtained in violation of the [[Fourth Amendment]], and ruled that the illegally obtained evidence could not be used against Weeks.

== Criticisms ==

The exclusionary rule came about as a remedy for violations of suspects constitutional rights. However, some argue that it is ridiculous that a crimminal go free "because the constable blundered." While other remedies are conceivable, such as holding both the constable and the suspect accountable for their own actions and violations, in the United States, the exclusionary rule remains judicial precedent.

== See also ==
* [[Weeks v. United States|Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)]] Created Exclusionary rule at federal level
* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=643 MAPP v. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)] Applied exclusionary rule to states
* [[Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents]]

[[Category: Law]]

Fruit of the poisonous tree

2007-05-22T14:04:49Z

HeartOfGold: /* Origins */ Clarification of origin

'''Fruit of the poisonous tree''' is a legal term in the United States that allows evidence that is obtained illegally (often unconstitutionally), as well as subsequent evidence legally obtained if said evidence was only made available via the illegally obtained evidence, to be ruled inadmissible in a court of law. It is also called the exclusionary rule. In the United States, defendents may make a motion to suppress such evidence, which means that the defendant is asking the trial judge to rule such evidence inadmissable during his or her trial.

For example, if a suspect has a confession beat out of him, and during the course of that confession, details to authorities to the location of a victim's body, and the authorities obtain a search warrant and recover the body, neither the confession nor the body can be used against the suspect in criminal proceedings.

== Exceptions ==
Evidence may not be suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine if:
#It was discovered through an untainted and independant source.
#It would have eventually been discovered through untainted sources.
== Origins ==
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is related to the exclusionary rule, which finds its origins in [[Weeks v. United States|Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)]], a case argued before the Supreme Court on December 2-3, 1913, and ultimately, the Bill of Rights. In Weeks v. United States, Justice William R. Day overturned Weeks's conviction because the evidence used against him at trial was obtained in violation of the [[Fourth Amendment]], and ruled that the illegally obtained evidence could not be used against Weeks.

== Criticisms ==

The exclusionary rule came about as a remedy for violations of suspects constitutional rights. However, some argue that it is ridiculous that a crimminal go free "because the constable blundered." While other remedies are conceivable, such as holding both the constable and the suspect accountable for their own actions and violations, in the United States, the exclusionary rule remains judicial precedent.

== See also ==
* [[Weeks v. United States|Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)]]
*[[Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents]]
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=643 MAPP v. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)]

[[Category: Law]]

Fruit of the poisonous tree

2007-05-22T14:03:37Z

HeartOfGold: /* Origins */ Exceptions

'''Fruit of the poisonous tree''' is a legal term in the United States that allows evidence that is obtained illegally (often unconstitutionally), as well as subsequent evidence legally obtained if said evidence was only made available via the illegally obtained evidence, to be ruled inadmissible in a court of law. It is also called the exclusionary rule. In the United States, defendents may make a motion to suppress such evidence, which means that the defendant is asking the trial judge to rule such evidence inadmissable during his or her trial.

For example, if a suspect has a confession beat out of him, and during the course of that confession, details to authorities to the location of a victim's body, and the authorities obtain a search warrant and recover the body, neither the confession nor the body can be used against the suspect in criminal proceedings.

== Exceptions ==
Evidence may not be suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine if:
#It was discovered through an untainted and independant source.
#It would have eventually been discovered through untainted sources.
== Origins ==
The exclusionary rule finds its origins in [[Weeks v. United States|Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)]], a case argued before the Supreme Court on December 2-3, 1913. Justice William R. Day overturned Weeks's conviction because the evidence used against him at trial was obtained in violation of the [[Fourth Amendment]], and ruled that the illegally obtained evidence could not be used against Weeks.

== Criticisms ==

The exclusionary rule came about as a remedy for violations of suspects constitutional rights. However, some argue that it is ridiculous that a crimminal go free "because the constable blundered." While other remedies are conceivable, such as holding both the constable and the suspect accountable for their own actions and violations, in the United States, the exclusionary rule remains judicial precedent.

== See also ==
* [[Weeks v. United States|Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)]]
*[[Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents]]
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=643 MAPP v. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)]

[[Category: Law]]

Fruit of the poisonous tree

2007-05-22T13:55:20Z

HeartOfGold: More on the exclusionary rule

'''Fruit of the poisonous tree''' is a legal term in the United States that allows evidence that is obtained illegally (often unconstitutionally), as well as subsequent evidence legally obtained if said evidence was only made available via the illegally obtained evidence, to be ruled inadmissible in a court of law. It is also called the exclusionary rule. In the United States, defendents may make a motion to suppress such evidence, which means that the defendant is asking the trial judge to rule such evidence inadmissable during his or her trial.

For example, if a suspect has a confession beat out of him, and during the course of that confession, details to authorities to the location of a victim's body, and the authorities obtain a search warrant and recover the body, neither the confession nor the body can be used against the suspect in criminal proceedings.

== Origins ==
The exclusionary rule finds its origins in [[Weeks v. United States|Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)]], a case argued before the Supreme Court on December 2-3, 1913. Justice William R. Day overturned Weeks's conviction because the evidence used against him at trial was obtained in violation of the [[Fourth Amendment]], and ruled that the illegally obtained evidence could not be used against Weeks.

== Criticisms ==

The exclusionary rule came about as a remedy for violations of suspects constitutional rights. However, some argue that it is ridiculous that a crimminal go free "because the constable blundered." While other remedies are conceivable, such as holding both the constable and the suspect accountable for their own actions and violations, in the United States, the exclusionary rule remains judicial precedent.

== See also ==
* [[Weeks v. United States|Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)]]
*[[Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents]]
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=643 MAPP v. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)]

[[Category: Law]]

Conspiracy

2007-05-22T13:33:35Z

HeartOfGold: category law

The word '''Conspiracy''' comes from the [[Latin]] "con spire", which means "to breathe together". A conspiracy is any secretive or unlawful group of people assembled for a plan.

In the United States, most criminal laws regarding conspiracy require that an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy be committed before a crime is said to have occurred. This overt act in and of itself need not be illegal. For example, if two or more persons plot to rob a bank, and one of these commits an overt act in furtherance of the plot, such as obtaining the schedule of security guards at the bank, or blueprints of the bank, the plotters may be charged and convicted of conpiracy to rob a bank.

== Types of Conspiracies ==

* [[Hub-and-spoke conspiracy]]
* [[Chain conspiracy]]
* [[Cell conspiracies]]

== Notable Historical Conspiracies ==

* the [[Illuminati]]
* [[Satanism]]
[[Category: Law]]

Conspiracy

2007-05-22T05:32:09Z

HeartOfGold: Conspiracy law in the united states. Any lawyers are welcome to clarify further.

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-05-22T05:26:23Z

HeartOfGold: /* Gonzales statement is not controversial */

good edit to Einstein article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Review==
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]

:''it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gospel of Thomas ==

It is true that the [[Gospel of Thomas]] is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.

::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== reply ==

I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Scientology]] ==

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ? Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, I'll talk with you about anything you like. psychotherapy sucks, no one who knows the myth talks, the Church defends itself vigorously in court. The critics are loud, the critics can publish cheaply. A simplicity of the situation exists, but how can a person view the simplicity, there's the question, would you say? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 09:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Newton ==
I have copied the conversation below onto the [[Isaac Newton]] talk page. I think it makes more sense to have it there for future reference. If we need to continue the conversation, let's do so over there. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless." ... "I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility." Are you serious? You don't know what Newton did that resulted in his title? I'd guess Calculus? Maybe Gravity? That deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't think we need to know the ins and outs of honorary titles in Britain to understand the basics of this one. According to Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp] "His country officially recognized his work in 1705 when he became the first person to receive a knighthood for scientific achievement." Surely this is important enough to include his "Sir"? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, I am serious. No American has any respect for British nobility titles. Apparently you don't know how Newton got the title either, because you are just guessing. You have a source that says that it was for "his work". Okay, that narrows it a little bit. It wasn't for his relatives. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my comment, as you misunderstood [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]'s use of the term "peer". I guess we need to back up a bit. In Britian, knighthoods are given for exceptional achievement or service to the nation, much like the USA gives the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Newton was the first to be made a knight for scientific achievement rather than prowess on the battlefield. (From doesgodexist.org: "In 1705, Queen Anne knighted him, Sir Isaac Newton. It was the first knighthood for scientific discoveries rather than deeds on the battlefield or in government." [http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec01/IsaacNewtonAndGodsLawOfGravity.html]) Thus Newton was given his title for his *body of work*, which of course included topics like gravity and calculus. I understand that *you* have no respect for such awards. Indeed, there is some controversy over modern versions, even in Britian (see [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/world/main590022.shtml]). However, I think it's simply not true to say that *No* American has any respect for British nobility titles - see [[User:Robledo|Robledo]]'s examples below. Given that Newton's achievements were so great as to be awarded an honor that had previously been given only for military prowess, I think the "Sir" is worth keeping. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Honorary knighthoods (accepted & thus I'm guessing respected...)

* George Bush
* Ronald Reagan
* Colin Powell
* General Norman Schwarzkopf
* Bob Hope

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm

Any more sweepingly daft generalisations to make? :P --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 20:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you've made it for me. I've never heard any American call any of those men "sir". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Naturally....none of them are British citizens. Read the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm source], son....third paragraph. *sighs* --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 21:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's because it is inappropriate for an American to use such a title.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm] Newton, however, was not American, thus the use of the title is appropriate. I know this stuff is complicated. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Exactly. To put it in context. "Bono" will never be "Sir Bono" (aside from the fact that his real name is Paul Hewson) because he is not a British citizen. So he can never be a "Sir". However, Newton ''was'' a British citizen, or a subject of the queen (or king), if you will. So he should be referred to by his correct title. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's a simple matter of respect. "Sir" is his title in his native country and therefore should be the title that he is addressed by whenever he is addressed, wherever he is addressed. Aside from that argument, he is known the world over as "Sir Isaac Newton".[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My students are fond of this song about Sir Issac - it's in MP3 format. [http://www.acme.com/jef/singing_science/newton-160.mp3]--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory ==

I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Correct, that point is not under dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:: No, it is definitely not under dispute. A theory in scientific terms can come close to a fact, just like evolution. Actually, evolution is a fact. Do you claim there is no such thing as microevolution?

== Theory II ==
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at webster's online. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave ''theory'' of light>
4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a ''scientific theory'' must follow what is known as the ''scientific method''. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does ''not'' have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is ''not'' synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Theory of Relativity/draft]] ==

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the [[Lorentz Transformation]]. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

::We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{tl|main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

::Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: They were developed in very different ways and at very different times '''and''' they are taught in very different ways and at very different times in university. They deserve completely separate articles (I am educated to graduate level on both). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I believe the latest version of the draft is mine. I'm knowledgeable of Special Relativity and I was trying to explain it in as basic terms as possible. I don't know much about General Relativity other than what I've picked up from other people. However RSchlafly I hope you realise that gravity is a fairly complex force which adds a lot of extra levels of difficulty onto Special Relativity. If anything they should be given different sections simply because they are so abominably different in scale. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, Special Relativity is simpler. That is why it is called "special". I favor one article titled Relativity that tries to give a concise explanation. There are many textbooks on the subject if the reader really wants the full course. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Personally, I'd favour Relativity as a very short concise "these are the principles of" style article (a sentence or two on each) with links to separate articles for each of the two theories. Also, because it is specialised, "simpler" is not the word. It is "simpler" because the maths is less hardcore, two very different things. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Copernicus ==

Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems ''still exist in modern astronomy today'' (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
: I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
: Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
: You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I blocked him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=69941&oldid=69913] Copernicus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=71299&oldid=71288] Theory [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&curid=7019&diff=71251&oldid=71242&rcid=73770], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::*Just a little note here, a quick check of the edit history of the page reveals AmesG's edit '''''did not''''' say that Tycho was a "previous astronomer" but in fact, said the exact opposite! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=71299 . HTH [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 15:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, I am quite serious. If you have some evidence that I am wrong, please post it on [[Talk:Theory]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
Thanks for the revert; however, what is wrong with reverting back to my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=prev&oldid=76854]. (sourced ref from Ann Coulter).
I think it is wrong for liberal editors to change sourced conservative views and replace them with their own liberal opinions (in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments). This is Conservapedia, and I don't want this to turn into Wikipedia, where the libs edit out what they don't like. They preach about free speech, including burning the flag, but they won't allow sourced comments from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 12:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: If some edit of yours got lost, go ahead and put it back in. I was merely trying to revert an edit of AmesG. He removed a perfectly good quote, and inserted a sentence in a half that had 3 factual errors in it. Almost every edit of his is erroneous and destructive. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Reply ==
A few things.
# As requested by Ed Poor, I have posted my reply to your "charges" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Why_do_you_stay.3F here]. I feel that my edits to [[Copernicus]] have been vindicated.
# In re the [[Theory]] article, Shlaf, you've been argued into a corner you can't get out of on the talk page. Please answer the comments there before claiming that you're right.
# In re the [[Antonin Scalia]] article, I never intended to imply that Scalia does not support the ''Brown'' decision. I'm sure he comes up with his own way to back it up. However, the [[Earl Warren]] opinion on ''Brown'' did rest on responsivism, which Scalia disagrees with flat out, as you have proven for me. So he disagrees with the popular reason for ''Brown'', which is '''all that I argued''', regardless of what you inferred. And you haven't disproven that thesis except to say, "Wha?! Who!??! Huh!?"
# Thank you to everyone who defended me. I appreciate it.
# I still think you can't be serious regarding the [[Theory]] article.
# Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, your edits to [[Copernicus]] were entirely wrong. In fact, all of you edits have been 100% bogus. I just had to revert this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=77179&oldid=77166] to [[ACLU]]. You just changed one line and managed to insert three errors. I believe that you should be blocked for persisting in making such destructive edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: As discussed on [[talk:ACLU]], yours is a bias-laden statement that makes no pretense at neutrality. Mine is legal fact. Look it up, or read the case, if it's just not too much trouble for ya. I would be thrilled to e-mail you a PDF from Lexis so you can have a go at it. I already have.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good delete==

Good delete on Flat Earth Society. I believe that both of those organizations, while the URLs exist, are hoaxes and do not belong on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, those sites are hoaxes, and so was the article. I just added an article on [[Flat Earth]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pedophilic priests==

I had previously deleted that, but sysop Ed Poor wanted to try to make it into an article. Do you think it would be maybe appropriate to make a more general article called something such as "Catholic Church abuse scandal"? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: I was thinking of moving it to a more general Pedophila article, but someone deleted that. Not sure why. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

That could also be done. At the very least, there should be a section on the specific Catholic aspects within that article, because it was obviously a fairly significant news story. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:47, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Flat Earth==

So, are you going to explain your block of the Flat Earth page? Given that my arguments are valid and need to be addressed I would have thought that an open, and more thoughtful outcome of the situation could have arisen. Also, given that its either my version or yours, the decision to block should be made by a different sysop (i.e. not one of the involved editors!) as to whether or not the page should be blocked. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: So tell me on the Talk page where my version is in error. I posted why your version is wrong. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry, I had already posted this before I realised you had posted on the talk page! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I added a lot to [[Flat Earth]] and made some comments at [[talk:Flat Earth]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Thanks. Conservapedia ought to be one place where evolutionists cannot make fun of Christians as flat earthers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mohammedans? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Islam&curid=1925&diff=87904&oldid=87876 Mohammedans]? Never heard of it. I guess you learn something new every day... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a very old fashioned term, and considered to be offensive. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is an old-fashioned term, but it used to be extremely common and it is still in dictionaries. It fell out of favor, but I don't think that it is correct to say that it is offensive. It is no more offensive than "moslem". Some people prefer "muslim" to "moslem", but there is nothing wrong with using "moslem" or "mohammedan". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Moslem vs. Muslim is a trans-Atlantic distinction. As for "Mohammedan," I studied with one of the nation's best Islamicists when I was at Rice. She specifically told us never to use "Mohammedan," and if you read any formal scholarship (after 1900) on the subject, you'll learn not to do it either. May I suggest Berkey, "the Formation of Islam"? Or, if you still disagree, we might as well revert to the Sayers translation of ''Song of Roland'', and just call Muslims ''Paynims''. It has about the same pejorative meaning.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, there are those who prefer not to use the term Mohammedan, but their objection is not that it is an ethnic slur or a synonym for paynim. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Those who "prefer not to use" the term are the Muslims themselves :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:04, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: And there are terrorists who prefer not to be called terrorists, and Moslems who prefer not to be called Moslems. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:37, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::My understanding is that the reason why it is not used is because it falsely implies that Muslims worship Mohammed. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Reasons like that are sometimes given, but they don't make much sense. Note that your reason is different from AmesG's reason. I don't think that there is any good reason. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I suppose the #1 determinant for whether the term goes in should be whether it is, in fact, commonly used or not. I can't speak for others, but I don't hear it used. Maybe in other parts of the country the term is more common, I don't know. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: It used to be more common. You'll find it a lot if you read old books. I would not be suggesting it if I thought that it was an ethnic slur. It is not. It literally means just a follower of Mohammad. Nothing wrong with the term. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think the one place I've seen it is in an old book in my church library, so that makes sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's bad because it is an ethnic slur, and insulting for the reason that MountainDew stated - it implies that Muslims worship Mohammed, which is insulting in the same way that saying that Jews worship Moses would be insulting. If you can find it in old books, guys, but not in any other books, it probably means that the term is outdated, as I've argued. I'm sure you'll find "colored" in old books describing African Americans, but I'd advise against using it in an article...-10:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It is VERY offensive for muslims to be referred to as Mohammadeans, for the above reasons. They are a very adamantly monotheistic faith, and any implication that they worship a human being is considered blasphemy (and you know how they feel about that). It's like calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians. Leave it out already. Why would you want to be so offensive. [[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't think that Mohammedan is an ethnic slur any more than "Abrahamic religion" is an ethnic slur on Jews. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:19, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::You don't think a lot of the time. Apology accepted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: AmesG, I was not apologizing to you.
::: PalMD, calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians is not particularly offensive. Of course, there are people who are offended by innocuous statements. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Since you weren't apologizing to me before, I'll accept it now.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: For what? Are you a Mohammedan who doesn't like to be called a Mohammedan? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

Dear Ms Schlafly - I did quote the abortion poll correctly, and when you quoted it selectively I expanded your quotation to give details. Please check the link. My subsequent editing of your misleading statement has been reverted. I suggest altering it to the unarguable one that 62% of Americans do not want Roe v Wade to be returned. Unless I hear your reasons why you believe this to be less than factual, I will edit it to that version shortly. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 16:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your statement did not match the most recent poll on the cited page with the poll results. Yes, your statement is less than factual. Give support on the Talk page, if you wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I posted actual facts. I am against misrepresenting facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Here is something I put on my userpage. Please spread the word among your friends ==

'''ARTICLES I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WRITTEN AT CONSERVAPEDIA:'''

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Right to life leaders]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==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]] 00:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

==Adultery==
Could we divide the topic of adultery into, for example, the [[Sin of adultery]] and "[[Adultery]]"? I'm not sure what the two types of infraction should be called, but it might make it easier on readers if we did a sort of division. What do you think would be best? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: What's the difference between the Sin of adultery and Adultery? What's the latter, the crime? I don't really agree with the recent edits on that page, and I guess I'll say so there. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Homosexuality article ==

Hi Roger. Could you please alter the first sentences of [[Homosexuality]] in accordance with [[talk:homosexuality#attraction or activity]] or comment there? I see you altered the Biblical Prohibition section. Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:15, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Capital punishment==

What was dubious about explaining the context of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as a covenant between the Israelis and God?

By the way, I wasn't the one who put the stupid comment about the Ten Commandments in there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why do you hate gay people so much? ==
Just curious. I'd love to know the reasons behind your "principled" disagreement.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: My disagreement is with your edits, as they are frequently erroneous and destructive. It has nothing to do with you being gay or not gay. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I never said I was gay or not (!?), but as someone who believes in equality & egalitarianism, I think it offends all of humanity, the level of distaste that your edits level against homosexuals.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: I never said that I hate gay people. Your bigotry is noted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm, bigotry is not accepting bigotry now? (butting in where I'm not wanted) [[User:Human|Human]] 21:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently AmesG and you want to use this page for ad hominem attacks on me. You will note that AmesG does not mention any specific edits to support his attacks. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

i know i have no part in this, but doesnt it seem like "mr. equality and egalitarianism and tolerance" AmesG is showing an utter lack of tolerance?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:No, AmesG asked Roger a question and he schlaflied it by avoiding the question and making a random assessment of the user. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:51, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I liked this edit. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&diff=next&oldid=140220] It's exactly what I was trying to say, but couldn't put into words. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:29, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question about your beliefs ==

Have you heard how they genetically alter fruit to make new fruits? I strongly disagree with this practice because it messes with the Earth the way it was created. Next it will be human cloning. This is just a stepping stone. Whats your opinion? (By the way I love your user page! It is so exciting. Mine is boring.) Thanks your friend--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the genetic modifications have been for the better, so far. Human cloning is another story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== f****t==

Please do not ever use the above-referenced word in an encyclopedia article. It is an offensive and ignorant slur, and does not reflect well upon the user. Thank you. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 14:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Why do you say that it is "ignorant"? Is it more offensive than "homophobic"? Why? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

It is more offensive than "homophobic." The parallel is, "n****r" : "racist" :: "f****t" : "homophobe".-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:32, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: So you say, but that is not my experience. Do you have any evidence to back up what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Call a gay man a "f****t" and see the effect. Ask a homosexual how they feel about that word. If you have any emotions at all, you can see why it's more offensive.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I hear black men say "nigger" frequently. I have heard homosexual man say "faggot" frequently. Both are obviously "in words". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, let's clarify the difference. I'm not saying it's okay to say it under any circumstances. But the generally accepted cultural convention is that someone "in" the group may use a derogatory slur, just like you can say, "yeah, I sucked on that exam," but your friend saying, "DUDE, you sucked on that exam," is not okay. That doesn't make EITHER words that are okay when used by someone outside the group, and esp. not to convey malice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::shouldnt the "homophobes" only be able to call themselves homophobes?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
NO. There is a difference. But tell you what if you don't see it, and if you don't want to be called a "homophobe," fine. I won't call you that, and I'll not use the word, if you won't use the words discussed above. This is only because I can't seem to make the difference clear to you, although it would be clear to anyone who actually is gay.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, I see the difference. You just happen to like some name-calling better than other name-calling, based on your own personal prejudices. That's all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Revert==
Hey can you revert my user talk page? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Geocentric theory]] ==

Roger: Strange as it might seem, I have personally run into people who cite the [[Bible]] in support of the [[geocentric theory]] of the [[solar system]]. I'm not saying that I buy those interpretations. I am saying that there's more to that proposition than someone (like user [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]]) trying to be a "wiseguy." I would say to [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] that she ought to cite her sources for any claims of "evidence advanced to support geocentrism." Then we can cite contrary evidence. But as I say--I don't think those edits really constituted subtle vandalism. I believe that the editor submitted them in good faith, and all that they need are appropriate citations.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:13, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know whether she believes that stuff or not, but even if she believes it, that is not reason enough to put it in an encyclopedia. A lot of people believe a lot of kooky things, and we can't list them all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see why you are so opposed to the page stating that some people believe the geocentric theory. Clearly some people do believe it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, it is not clear. Who? Where? How do you know that the web page is not a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::It looks real, as does [http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ This one] --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am not going to pay the $27 to try to find out. What if someone else says the Moon is made of green cheese and cites a web site? It is not much evidence that there is any significant belief in a green cheese theory. Maybe it could be mentioned in an article on Internet scams or something like that. I did look at the work that Mmeelliissssaa referred me too, and it is not a serious piece of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:49, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Exactly what i try to tell to creationists time to time, if 99% of biologists think creationism has no merits and is just view held by few people because of their religious beliefs, why waste time and space on encyclopedia for that. But still, most encyclopedias like Wikipedia are willing to add articles that admit that some people still believe earth to be 6000 years old. But i see Conservapedia is taking a stricter attitude here. I'm all in favour of it. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 12:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What is the idea in adding joke pages (for example fixedearth) as references - I don't understand it if this site is trying to be encyclopedic one and not a joke collection!? They are parodies written about Christians. Irony and taunt. And even better joke if someone takes it as earnestly written. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 13:42, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well to be fair, I thought [[YEC]] was a parody of Christian beliefs until I did some research on it. Geocentrism doesn't sound that much more implausible to me. --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism to Geocentric Theory==
You managed to cut out all of my well-researched and highly-relevant material from the article without any comment whatsoever. I consider this to be vandalism. If this behaviour continues I shall report this to a SySop. [[User:OfficerDibble]].

==Reversions==
WILL YOU DISCUSS THIS INSTEAD OF JUST UNDOING????

Peace Pact. If you want to make reversions, propose them on the Talk page. I know I have one other person who is editing who will support my point of view.

==Wiki-Conservapedia?==

Can I point out that the reason the Conservapedia was set up in the first place was that some conservative views were being sidelined by an obviously liberal organ because those views did not concur whith the majority. Your revert of the [[Geocentric Theory]] page then protection of it clearly demonstrates that the are some conservative elements who are quilty of the same crime that Wikipedia is accused of. [[User:OfficerDibble]]

I have made my points, and have to log off now. I shall attempt to reformulate these ideas in a different form. The points i am tying to make in the GeoCentric Article are twofold:
# The view of whether the earth, the sun, the moon, Ceres or for that matter any other body is a starionary object at the centre of the universe is a matter of scientific convention. The Laws of Gravity and relativity can, in principle be reformulated to ake this happen. Thsi is a sceintific FACT, not a speculation. The fact that we don't do this is a matter of convention and parsimony, due to Occam's Razor, combined with the fact that the exlanatory schema imposed by Heliocentrism has a certain elegance. i.e. it makes the math easier. David Deutsch's book confirms this position. It is a PHiliosophiucal View, therefore and not a scientific one.
#There are groups of people who hold that the Bible says that GeoCentricisnm is correct, and is supported by biblical text. An article on Geocentricism should include material about these people, their beliefs and how these are squared with current scientific evidnce.

Ypu are just removing this without discussion, and my point is that this is no way to behave. [[User:OfficerDibble]]

: You are barking up the wrong tree. The article already makes these points. I have protected the article so that any changes can be discussed on the Talk page, and to allow you to calm down. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:46, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Homophobia ==
I'd like to see a comprehensive list of specific reasons why you reverted on the talk page ASAP. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: I already did, before you posted your request. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:47, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[Conservapedia:AFD Homophobia]]==
Need some support, please. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:59, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[Agnosticism]]==
Good clarification. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:51, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Notice ==

Please read this: [[New Sysops Training Page]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== McCarthy article ==
I have a great deal of Senator McCarthy information that I would like to add. Can you please allow me to make edits to that page? I would be happy to do a mock-up for you to inspect prior to allowing edits of the McCarthy page. Please let me know. Thank you. --11:48, 21 May 2007 (EDT)[[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]]

: Go ahead propose something on the Talk page. My main purpose there was to make sure that the criticisms were specific and documented. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::I haven't checked out the conservapedia article on McCarthy yet, but you might get a chuckle out of [[User:HeartOfGold/MythOfMcCarthyism|MythOfMcCarthyism]] in my user space. You've probably read the book, but if not, it is good. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Blog ==

"''Mr. Right, It Turns Out, Does Not...''". Just wanted you to know I came across that, and got a chuckle out of it. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:48, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Gonzales statement is not controversial ==

Hello. Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Habeas_corpus&diff=171451&oldid=171414 this]...I am the person who added that section title. However, upon reflection, I agree, that Gonzales's statement is not controversial. The implication is controversial to me, and probabably many others on the left and the right, but he is technically correct.

Habeas Corpus was such an important individual "right" (really, specified as ''privilege'' in the constitution) that it is one of the few individual rights/privileges mentioned in the Constitution. Personally, as a conservative who believes in the rule of law, I ''do'' think the Gonzales's implication is controversial, but this is my opinion, and you were right to revert it. (Mind you, I am not one to think that Habeas Corpus applies to enemy combatants held in Cuba--rather, I do fear the day they take away the right to petition for habeas corpus of U.S. citizens held by U.S. officials)...Could you imagine if Hillary decides to make use of or expand upon Gonzales's statements? [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 23:07, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::You're a bit late for that--just ask Jose Padilla. Habeas Corpus is now obsolete in the USA, and the Democrats aren't too likely to be inclined to put the toy away when they get to play with it. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::: There is some controversy over whether enemy combatants have habeas corpus rights. The US Constitution is silent on the matter. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:20, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I think the only question is whether U.S. Citizens who have been classified as enemy combatants enjoy such rights. Any foreign national, picked up and held on foreign soil--they need to seek the protection of their own country's constitution...but my opinion is a matter for discussion, not an article. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 01:26, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-05-22T03:08:59Z

HeartOfGold: /* McCarthy article */