Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Rostker v. Goldberg

2007-09-20T05:20:00Z

Katja N: Summary of Case

[[Category:United States Government]]
'''Rostker v. Goldberg

453 U.S. 57 (1981)'''

In 1980, [[President Carter]] reinstated the <ref>draft</ref> registration process. [[Congress]] allowed this, but did not agree with his suggestion that the [[Military Selective Service Act]] (MSSA) should be amended to allow women to register for the drafting process. Several men then brought up a lawsuit challenging the Act's constitutionality.

The United States [[Supreme Court]] ruled that while men could register for a draft, women could not. This was because "Men and women, because of the combat restrictions on women, are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft." <ref>http://supreme.justia.com/us/453/57/case.html</ref>

United States Congress

2007-09-20T04:24:23Z

Katja N: /* Quotes */

'''Congress''' is the term for the legislative body of the [[United States of America]].

==Powers==

The powers of congress, called the [[Delegated Powers]] are detailed in [[United States Constitution:Article I|Article I]], section eight. This includes the [[Necessary and Proper Clause]]<ref>U.S. Government and Politics</ref>

==Origin==

The Congress of the United States was created in the [[Unites States Constitution:Article I|first article]] of the [[Constitution]]<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1</ref>.

==Houses==
Congress is divided into two houses, the [[Senate]] and the [[House of Representatives]]. The Senate gives equal weight for each state, with each state electing 2 senators who serve 6 year terms. The House is proportioned based upon population, with each House member serving a 2 year term. The House and Senate must agree for [[legislation]] to be enacted. The [[President]] can [[veto]] that legislation which can then be overridden by a 2/3rds majority of both Houses of Congress.

==Quotations==
{{cquote|There is no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress}}

--Mark Twain

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:United States Government]]

Barron v. Baltimore

2007-09-19T04:19:59Z

Katja N:

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

In ''Barron v. Baltimore,'' 32 U.S. 243 (1833), The United States [[Supreme Court]] held that State governments are not bound by the [[Fifth Amendment]]'s ruling for compensation in cases of [[eminent domain]].

The plaintiff, a Mr. John Barrow, said that under the [[Fifth Amendment]], compensation for the injury of losing his wharf's valuable harbor space was due from the Mayor and Council of Baltimore. The City of Baltimore had redirected the water flow from the harbor while doing street construction, making the plaintiff's wharf water shallow and unusable.

The Court stated that "These amendments [about compensation for eminent domain] demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments"[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barronvbalt.html] and that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict state government choices on the matter of eminent domain.

Thus, claiming to have no jurisdiction over the cause, the Court dismissed the case. [http://supreme.justia.com/us/32/243/]

2007-01-20T03:07:43Z

Katja N: /* American Spelling of Words */

User talk:Dpbsmith

2007-01-20T02:54:33Z

Katja N:

Comment posted on talk page for Commandments:

Seeing as you seem to be our resident Evolution Expert, I have a question. How Does evolution explain the instinct in bees to only harvest nectar from one kind of plant on any given day? According to the survival of the fittest, the bees should be going to the flowers closest to their hive so as to maximize the amount of nectar that they could gather in a day.
--[[User:CJS|CJS]] 21:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:I don't want to be "resident evolution expert" if that means I'm supposed to "prove" evolution, or have a pat answer for everything, or anything like that. And, by the way, I love to argue, but I'm a stranger here and ''trying'' to be a polite guest.

:I don't know a specific answer to your specific question.

:So I'm going to answer your question with another question: how can you be ''sure'' that going to the closest flowers is really the best survival strategy? How can you be sure that what they actually do may not be better?

:Scientists have discovered some surprising things. You might wonder why sickle-cell anemia, a genetic disease, persists in African populations. You'd think that according to Darwinism, the people without sickle-cell anemia would be fitter and that over time the population carrying the sickle-cell gene would be selected out. So, does the continued existence of the sickle-cell gene disprove Darwinism?

:It turns out that the gene that causes sickle-cell anemia only does so when there are two of them... and when there is only one of them, it provides protection against malaria! So, in places where there is malaria, there is selection ''for'' the sickle-cell gene. This benefits the population as a whole, because most members of the population only get one gene, so they get malaria protection without getting sickle-cell anemia. Only the unfortunate people who are homozygous for the gene get sickle-cell anemia.

:So, it may not be at all obvious what is really being selected for... in fact it may take a research study to discover it.

:So, with respect to the bees, the real scientist's question: ''how would you find out?'' What experiments could you perform to find out whether it is better for bees to go to the closest flowers than to go to the flowers they actually go to?

:(Pretty feeble, but the best I can do at short notice!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:24, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:: '''Reply:''' Evolutionists exaggerate the sickle-cell anemia example, though I don't fault Dpbsmith for repeating it. From the Mayo Clinic's website: "Sickle cell anemia is an inherited form of anemia — a condition in which there aren't enough healthy red blood cells to carry oxygen throughout your body. Under normal circumstances, your red blood cells are flexible and round, and they move easily through your blood vessels to carry oxygen to all parts of your body. In people with sickle cell anemia, the red blood cells become rigid and sticky and are shaped like sickles or crescent moons. These irregular-shaped blood cells die prematurely, resulting in a chronic shortage of red blood cells. Plus, they can get stuck when traveling through small blood vessels, which can slow or block blood flow and oxygen to certain parts of the body. This produces pain and can lead to serious complications. There's no cure for most people with sickle cell anemia. However, treatments can relieve pain and prevent further problems." http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sickle-cell-anemia/DS00324

:: So sickle cell anemia is, overall, a harmful disease. And the disease itself does not protect against malaria, but those susceptible to the disease (e.g., have the gene) may be less vulnerable to malaria. I don't know if that's been proven but I have an open mind about it. Regardless, this does not support evolution in any way. There is no evidence that really has been "selection" for those afflicted with vulnerability to sickle cell anemia, and that suggestion seems highly unlikely. The link to evolution here remains a leap of faith. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:24, 16 January 2007 (EST)

:::I happen to think that on the topic of evolution, the scientific community ''has'' allowed itself to become somewhat dogmatic and to claim too much about the explanatory value of the theory.

:::And I also think the "science versus religion" aspect doesn't do much good for either science or religion. The Catholic Church's 1992 rehabilitation of Galileo was a good thing.

:::P. S. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to research whether or not a single allele of the sickle-cell anemia gene really protects against malaria. I think that's sound, but a lot of things that circulate as simple stories turn out to be a lot more complicated when you look into them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:02, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith, I reflected further on your criticism, which was well-taken. Accordingly, I have changed the Commandment #4 in response to your criticism as follows: 4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, you must give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are not acceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis for the date.

Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to Conservapedia. --Aschlafly 12:33, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Feel free to respond there. Thanks!

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:Much better. Fine, in fact. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:43, 20 December 2006 (EST)

----

I moved our interesting debate about perpetual motion machines to its own talk page for that entry, in the hope it will enlighten and perhaps spark debate by others. I've marked that page as "Watch" now so I will be notified whenever you post to it.

Thanks. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:00, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Your explanation of [[Bell Laboraties]] is superb! I worked there in the mid-1980s and became an expert in UNIX there. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Nice image of Phillip Brooks! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:08, 6 January 2007 (EST)

*Thanks. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:26, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your entry on <big><math>\pi</math></big>. I improved the symbol using our LaTex capability. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 13 January 2007 (EST)

I am sickened that this discussion on evolution is going on here, not that I agree with your views on it, but there are places to debate this other than a member's talk page. I just wanted to thank you for your conflicting, yet intelligent, contributions. We need more people like you. :) [[User:David R|David R]]

:Well, thanks. But everybody on this talk page has been perfectly courteous. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:42, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your superb improvement to [[geometric progression]]!!! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 19 January 2007 (EST)

:You're welcome. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:41, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for putting your two cents in on the 'spelling issue'. You certainly make more sense than the other person I was speaking to. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 21:54, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-01-20T02:45:16Z

Katja N: /* American Spelling of Words */

==American Spelling of Words==

I think we should add as a new commandment that you have to do the American spelling of words. I'm pretty sure it used to be on the homepage, but it must have been removed...I can't find it. What do you guys think? [[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]
*I agree. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:16, 11 January 2007 (EST)
**Why bother? You would alienate conservatives who are from Europe. And I am a little biased here because I use British spelling all the time. =D -- [[User:Katja N|Katie]] 22:44, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*** Because we are an American encyclopedia...not British. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:49, 18 January 2007 (EST)
****Point: We are an online encyclopedia which can go all over the world, including England. And if a British man had a good point that he put up on the site but used his own spelling, would we ban him? After all, he would be "breaking the Conservapedia Commandments." I just don't think making people spell things the American way should be in the rulebook. (People on this site often make spelling errors anyway)--[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:06, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*****If a British guy starts using British spellings we warn him to stop... if he continues... we would block him. If people refuse to respect our rules they can go elsewhere. PS. Sorry for editing your post... I'm just trying to keep things organized. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:10, 18 January 2007 (EST)
****** British and American are basically the same thing. We should encourage people to use the American spelling but it is ridiculous to "block" them...After all, American is just butchered English --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*******We are not debating the issue of blocking someone for disobeying a rule (which is something we have reserved the right to do), we're debating adding an "American spellings" rule. The fact is that were an American encyclopedia so we should remain patriotic and use the American spellings for words. We can't just say that Conservapedia "encourages" or "recommends" this, because we can't enforce that. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:42, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*******We ''are'' talking about blocking people because when someone breaks a "Commandment", they get warned and then [perhaps] blocked... Well, I understand that this is an American encyclopedia, but realistically, it seems like such a small thing to actually create an enforceable rule about and you may unintentionally wind up alienating people who wish to contribute to the page, people who are American but do spell things the British way without realizing it (people of older generations for example who were taught that way in Catholic grammar school) If the majority of people want an official rule about this, then that's fine but who is going to go through the entire conservapedia to enforce this?? It will be a monumental task, in my opinion, as you would have to go entry by entry every single week to ensure that this commandment wasn't being violated. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:56, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*******If we make a rule about it people will be more likely to use the American spellings. Obviously we will not block specific people without ample warning. We will not have to patrol the pages day and night to make sure... just whenever someone does an edit post on their user page a reference to the rule and they'll stop. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 00:07, 19 January 2007 (EST)
*******It appears that you are missing my point. If you make a rule about it, people will ''have'' to use the American spelling, (not be 'more likely' to) which is unfair, as many people on this site cannot even spell normally. But hey! I am sure that you all have a just reason to make such a petty rule. (Oh, right; "We're American". The homepage doesn't really state that we're American anyway)I'm sure that I am unpatriotic because I spell "favorite" like our Founding Fathers did with a 'U' ... like a Brit. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 08:35, 19 January 2007 (EST)
********By the way... is everyone aware that most of the differences between U. S. and British spelling are the direct personal work of none other than [[Noah Webster]]? U. S. schools used British books, and Webster thought Americans should learn from American books. He published spelling books and dictionaries that were widely adopted, and over the years he gradually changed the spelling, dropping the "u" from "color" and "honor," changing the order of the "r" and "e" in "center," and so forth... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:34, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I suggest that when anyone notices a British spelling, they should just change it to the U. S. spelling, with an edit comment like "per Conservapedia style." I think British contributors will get the idea. Brits who are familiar and comfortable with U. S. spellings can do so, those who aren't should just do their best and let others copyedit their work.

On a cooperative project, one has to be prepared to do a certain amount of cleaning up after others.

When a U. S. author is published in England or vice versa, nobody expects the ''author'' to rewrite their book in the other national style. The publisher does that for the author as part of the publishing process.

If Conservapedia's stylesheet mandates U. S. spellings, then contributors who use British spelling shouldn't object to having their work copyedited to use U. S. spellings.

Just my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:46, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Well said Dpbsmith. I guess it would just be best to make a "Conservapedia requests" rule for this... instead of a command. What do you guys think? Thanks. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:47, 19 January 2007 (EST)

*I agree with Philip and Dpbsmith. [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:20, 19 January 2007 (EST)

**Yes, editing is fine, if you so wish it. But making a big rule about it is not necessary. As I've been saying. (Had to put my opinion in again) --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 21:17, 19 January 2007 (EST)

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|Archive 1]]

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-01-20T02:24:28Z

Katja N: /* American Spelling of Words */

==American Spelling of Words==

I think we should add as a new commandment that you have to do the American spelling of words. I'm pretty sure it used to be on the homepage, but it must have been removed...I can't find it. What do you guys think? [[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]
*I agree. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:16, 11 January 2007 (EST)
**Why bother? You would alienate conservatives who are from Europe. And I am a little biased here because I use British spelling all the time. =D -- [[User:Katja N|Katie]] 22:44, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*** Because we are an American encyclopedia...not British. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:49, 18 January 2007 (EST)
****Point: We are an online encyclopedia which can go all over the world, including England. And if a British man had a good point that he put up on the site but used his own spelling, would we ban him? After all, he would be "breaking the Conservapedia Commandments." I just don't think making people spell things the American way should be in the rulebook. (People on this site often make spelling errors anyway)--[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:06, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*****If a British guy starts using British spellings we warn him to stop... if he continues... we would block him. If people refuse to respect our rules they can go elsewhere. PS. Sorry for editing your post... I'm just trying to keep things organized. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:10, 18 January 2007 (EST)
****** British and American are basically the same thing. We should encourage people to use the American spelling but it is ridiculous to "block" them...After all, American is just butchered English --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*******We are not debating the issue of blocking someone for disobeying a rule (which is something we have reserved the right to do), we're debating adding an "American spellings" rule. The fact is that were an American encyclopedia so we should remain patriotic and use the American spellings for words. We can't just say that Conservapedia "encourages" or "recommends" this, because we can't enforce that. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:42, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*******We ''are'' talking about blocking people because when someone breaks a "Commandment", they get warned and then [perhaps] blocked... Well, I understand that this is an American encyclopedia, but realistically, it seems like such a small thing to actually create an enforceable rule about and you may unintentionally wind up alienating people who wish to contribute to the page, people who are American but do spell things the British way without realizing it (people of older generations for example who were taught that way in Catholic grammar school) If the majority of people want an official rule about this, then that's fine but who is going to go through the entire conservapedia to enforce this?? It will be a monumental task, in my opinion, as you would have to go entry by entry every single week to ensure that this commandment wasn't being violated. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:56, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*******If we make a rule about it people will be more likely to use the American spellings. Obviously we will not block specific people without ample warning. We will not have to patrol the pages day and night to make sure... just whenever someone does an edit post on their user page a reference to the rule and they'll stop. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 00:07, 19 January 2007 (EST)
*******It appears that you are missing my point. If you make a rule about it, people will ''have'' to use the American spelling, (not be 'more likely' to) which is unfair, as many people on this site cannot even spell normally. But hey! I am sure that you all have a just reason to make such a petty rule. (Oh, right; "We're American". The homepage doesn't really state that we're American anyway)I'm sure that I am unpatriotic because I spell "favorite" like our Founding Fathers did with a 'U' ... like a Brit. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 08:35, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I suggest that when anyone notices a British spelling, they should just change it to the U. S. spelling, with an edit comment like "per Conservapedia style." I think British contributors will get the idea. Brits who are familiar and comfortable with U. S. spellings can do so, those who aren't should just do their best and let others copyedit their work.

On a cooperative project, one has to be prepared to do a certain amount of cleaning up after others.

When a U. S. author is published in England or vice versa, nobody expects the ''author'' to rewrite their book in the other national style. The publisher does that for the author as part of the publishing process.

If Conservapedia's stylesheet mandates U. S. spellings, then contributors who use British spelling shouldn't object to having their work copyedited to use U. S. spellings.

Just my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:46, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Well said Dpbsmith. I guess it would just be best to make a "Conservapedia requests" rule for this... instead of a command. What do you guys think? Thanks. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:47, 19 January 2007 (EST)

*I agree with Philip and Dpbsmith. [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:20, 19 January 2007 (EST)

**Yes, editing is fine, if you so wish it. But making a big rule about it is not necessary. (Had to put my opinion in again) --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 21:17, 19 January 2007 (EST)

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|Archive 1]]

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-01-20T02:17:13Z

Katja N: /* American Spelling of Words */

==American Spelling of Words==

I think we should add as a new commandment that you have to do the American spelling of words. I'm pretty sure it used to be on the homepage, but it must have been removed...I can't find it. What do you guys think? [[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]
*I agree. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:16, 11 January 2007 (EST)
**Why bother? You would alienate conservatives who are from Europe. And I am a little biased here because I use British spelling all the time. =D -- [[User:Katja N|Katie]] 22:44, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*** Because we are an American encyclopedia...not British. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:49, 18 January 2007 (EST)
****Point: We are an online encyclopedia which can go all over the world, including England. And if a British man had a good point that he put up on the site but used his own spelling, would we ban him? After all, he would be "breaking the Conservapedia Commandments." I just don't think making people spell things the American way should be in the rulebook. (People on this site often make spelling errors anyway)--[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:06, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*****If a British guy starts using British spellings we warn him to stop... if he continues... we would block him. If people refuse to respect our rules they can go elsewhere. PS. Sorry for editing your post... I'm just trying to keep things organized. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:10, 18 January 2007 (EST)
****** British and American are basically the same thing. We should encourage people to use the American spelling but it is ridiculous to "block" them...After all, American is just butchered English --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*******We are not debating the issue of blocking someone for disobeying a rule (which is something we have reserved the right to do), we're debating adding an "American spellings" rule. The fact is that were an American encyclopedia so we should remain patriotic and use the American spellings for words. We can't just say that Conservapedia "encourages" or "recommends" this, because we can't enforce that. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:42, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*******We ''are'' talking about blocking people because when someone breaks a "Commandment", they get warned and then [perhaps] blocked... Well, I understand that this is an American encyclopedia, but realistically, it seems like such a small thing to actually create an enforceable rule about and you may unintentionally wind up alienating people who wish to contribute to the page, people who are American but do spell things the British way without realizing it (people of older generations for example who were taught that way in Catholic grammar school) If the majority of people want an official rule about this, then that's fine but who is going to go through the entire conservapedia to enforce this?? It will be a monumental task, in my opinion, as you would have to go entry by entry every single week to ensure that this commandment wasn't being violated. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:56, 18 January 2007 (EST)
*******If we make a rule about it people will be more likely to use the American spellings. Obviously we will not block specific people without ample warning. We will not have to patrol the pages day and night to make sure... just whenever someone does an edit post on their user page a reference to the rule and they'll stop. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 00:07, 19 January 2007 (EST)
*******It appears that you are missing my point. If you make a rule about it, people will ''have'' to use the American spelling, (not be 'more likely' to) which is unfair, as many people on this site cannot even spell normally. But hey! I am sure that you all have a just reason to make a rule that is so petty. (Oh, right; "We're American" @_@ the homepage doesn't really state that we're American anyway)) Oh, and I'm sure that I am unpatriotic because I spell "favorite" like our Founding Fathers did with a 'U' ... like a Brit. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 08:35, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I suggest that when anyone notices a British spelling, they should just change it to the U. S. spelling, with an edit comment like "per Conservapedia style." I think British contributors will get the idea. Brits who are familiar and comfortable with U. S. spellings can do so, those who aren't should just do their best and let others copyedit their work.

On a cooperative project, one has to be prepared to do a certain amount of cleaning up after others.

When a U. S. author is published in England or vice versa, nobody expects the ''author'' to rewrite their book in the other national style. The publisher does that for the author as part of the publishing process.

If Conservapedia's stylesheet mandates U. S. spellings, then contributors who use British spelling shouldn't object to having their work copyedited to use U. S. spellings.

Just my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:46, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Well said Dpbsmith. I guess it would just be best to make a "Conservapedia requests" rule for this... instead of a command. What do you guys think? Thanks. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:47, 19 January 2007 (EST)

*I agree with Philip and Dpbsmith. [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:20, 19 January 2007 (EST)

**Yes, editing is fine, if you so wish it. But making a big rule about it is not necessary. (Had to put my opinion in again) --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 21:17, 19 January 2007 (EST)

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|Archive 1]]

User:Katja N

2007-01-19T21:14:36Z

Katja N:

Rembrant

2007-01-19T21:07:06Z

Katja N:

Rembrant (1606-1669) was [[Denmark]]'s most acclaimed painter. He considered himself a religous painter, but his portraits gave him most of his publicity. Rembrant produced about 600 painting including his 50-60 self portraits, he made 300 etchings, and an estmaited amount of about 1,400 drawings. Most of his drawings look unfinished, but he stated a drawing is finished when the artist has fulfulled his intentions.

User:Katja N

2007-01-19T21:04:04Z

Katja N:

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-01-19T13:43:52Z

Katja N: /* American Spelling of Words */

Conservapedia:Logo

2007-01-19T13:36:24Z

Katja N:

== Before Making Your Own Logo Read This ==

The "rules" for creating the logo are as follows:

# The logo has to be 135 x 135 pixels
# The logo cannot utilize a globe as this would be far to close to Wikipedia's logo
# The logo needs to "blend" well with the rest of the site (this is more of a good thing than a rule but your logo will probably not be used if it does not)
# It would be best for any "background" sections of the photo to be transparent

== Conservapedia Logo ==

*Also, I meant to ask you about the logo yesterday and completely forgot. I have fooled around making a couple logos but am not very happy with the results. I am assuming the colors should be blue, white and other neutral colors or maybe red (to match the featured aritcle and news headers). Let me know if you have a particular color scheme in mind. I'm also trying to decide what the logo should be based up, a cross or the letter C for example. So if you have any imput or ideas on this topic let me know. Sorry about this being so long!--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 14:01, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply:''' I don't have any particular color scheme in mind. However, the colors of the logo need to blend well with the rest of the site. Post anything you have on here and we can improve them. Also, I came up with the logo below but Mr. Schlafly and I both agree that it is a little too republican. Even so, the colors and the "dullness" of this image are sortof what we are looking for.

:: [[Image:Logo_Concept.png]]

:: If anyone else has a good idea for a logo feel free to post it here. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:24, 5 January 2007 (EST)

*Here is my favorite one:

:[[Image:LOGO3.jpg|200px]]

:There is something weird about it, but I can't quite tell what it is. Also, it doesn't say Conservapedia on it, but I can change that if you want me to. Please critique it, and I will improve it with your suggestions.

:Thank you!

:--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:01, 5 January 2007 (EST)

:PS: It doesn't really have that white background. It is supposed to be just the circle. [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]

* Here is my logo suggestion. I borrowed the C from sharon.
:[[Image:Conservalogo.JPG]]

:[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

**Good work Ben! I have two comments about your logo: This may just be me, but the ovals sort of look like orbits of electrons around the nucleus in the bohr model of the atom, implying that Conservapedia is a scientific encyclopedia, while we really have content on all topics. The image looks a little "digital", meaning you can see the pixels creating that jagged look around the edges of the letters and lines. You might be able to fix this by adjusting your program to make higher quality images with more pixels.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:56, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**Ben, it looks like Saturn. -Sarah
**Thank you sharon, I agree on the first point; my original intention was to place the "Conservapedia" on top of one of those oval maps of the world. i could't do this because the only artistic medium i have on my comuter is paintbrush. That is also the reason why it looks "digital". [[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]
**Wow Sharon, that was deep :)
**Ben, I like your idea about putting "Conservapedia" on top of a world map. I started to mess around with it a little and like the results so far. I will post it on here once it is presentable.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:39, 6 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservapedia logo idea -2.JPG]]
This is my logo suggestion --JessicaS 11:41, 7 January 2007 (EST)

*Jessica, your logo is nice. I would suggest that you give the letters a little more room at the edges. Also, you might try cropping it to a square with rounded corners. Here is what I came up with based on Ben's excellent idea:
[[Image:Another_logo.jpg|300px]]
As I said before, I really like this one. Thank you for the great idea Ben! Let me know what you think of it.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:24, 7 January 2007 (EST)

I think the background earth is too vivid, it should be maybe light blue and green.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:49, 7 January 2007 (EST)

OK. I'll do that in a minute. [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]

I really don't like either of the two "globe" logos. We are an AMERICAN encyclopedia. If you want to put something behind the logo put a map of America. Also, Wikipedia uses a globe, we don't want something so similar... definitely no globe [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 16:56, 7 January 2007 (EST)

True, the globe thing is a little to close to Wikipedia's logo. My next one will be "Conservapedia" over a blue and green map of America. ~ Sharon

Actually, now that I think of it, although we do favor the American spelling of words, we have contributors from all around the world. Just something to think about. ~ Sharie

I noticed something interesting about Wikipedia's logo. It reflects their mission statement "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" it the way it has a missing puzzle piece. I wonder if we could come up with something that reflects "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust". If anyone has any ideas put them on here. ~ Sharie

'''REPLY''': Yes, it is true that we favor American spellings for words and that we have contributors worldwide, but this is beside the point. Conservapedia is American, unlike Wikipedia which even though it is located in America, does not support America openly. It is very disappointing that this America-based website does not show its patriotism openly. Conservapedia will always show that it is proud to be American. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 17:26, 7 January 2007 (EST)
*I have mixed feelings on this issue. Yes, we do want to support America, but we also do not want to exclude other countries from Conservapedia. If I lived in Ireland or some other country and stumbled upon Conservapedia one day and saw a map of America on the logo, I would conclude that Conservapedia was an American encyclopedia, which is true. But, I think that the map of America would cause me to conclude that contributions from other countries were not wanted. We certainly do not want to exclude people from other countries in this way. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:28, 8 January 2007 (EST)

'''Comment''' I think that this particular logo (above) is the best so far.

As to the little debate you are having, I think that a globe is a very appropriate encyclopedia logo; we hope to have facts in our encyclopedia that relate to the '''''entire world''''', not just America. The fact that we require american spellings does not mean we only want information about america. ''The logo should be a reflection of what type of information we offer.''

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:53, 8 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservalogo.gif]]

How about something like this

The background looks too dull along with that red color, which really hurts my eyes, but it will probably look much better after some color changes. ~ Sharon

Or This
[[Image:Conservalogo2.gif]]

That looks much better! The other map looked like goggles or something. ~ Sharon

These look pretty good Sharon. However, remember that we want the logo to "blend" well with the rest of the site. These logos would kind of clash with the other colors... if you know what I mean. Sorry for being so negative ;) [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 17:28, 7 January 2007 (EST)
*Oh, those are actually Tim's. I just commented on them. I was instaling all my graphics designs software on this computer and am going to make some more logos tonight. Also, don't worry about being negative in your comments. If everyone tries to be nice all the time, nothing gets done. Since we are all friends, contructive criticism won't hurt anybody's feelings and will help us come out with a really excellent logo. ~ Sharie

[[Image:CLOGO3.gif]]
Or this

Here is another logo in softer colors with soft edges. I also changed the fonts around a little, but can put them back the other way if you don't like these.

[[Image:Yet_Another_Logo.jpg|300px]]

I know it still needs quite a bit of work so please critique it! --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:54, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I changed my mind. The more I see, the less I like the idea of the logo being based on a map or globe. I think something made up of several different pieces that reflect our "mission," including things like a a cross, an american flag, a bible, etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:21, 8 January 2007 (EST)

How about something like this:
[[Image:Conservapidialogo01.JPG]]

I like it! Once again, the colors are a little too bright (on my monitor at any rate), but it is a good start. I really like the American flag in it. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:51, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I think that the bright colors are good. It may be a bit much when you see it big like that, but if it is small and in the corner of the screen it will help it be more noticable. You don't want the logo to blend so much that it "hides" in the corner. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:07, 8 January 2007 (EST)

* I still like the other one better (see my last comment). If we do end up using this one, you need to make the "conservapedia" alot bigger. The caption will be almost illegible when this logo is small enough to fit in the corner.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:15, 8 January 2007 (EST)

* P.s. I would further complain that the cross does is just plain brown and does not fit the picture; Maybe you should paste one on the flag that is slightly more detailed. also I don't like having the american flag at all; The logo, as I said before, should be a reflection of what type of information we offer.

I disagree: The logo should not reflect all of the information that we have to offer, but the difference between what we have to offer and what other people have to offer. It should reflect our point of view. Nobody is going to look at a logo and say "Oh look, an american flag, they must only have information about america." The logo reflects Christianity and Patriotism, not that we only have information about america and christianity. Even if we did want to do it your way the map would still be a bad idea because it implies geography. The logo I posted is just a concept, not a final product. it took me about 5 minutes. We would certainly want a more detailed cross, and bigger type.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:29, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I never thought about the world map implying geography. Interesting point. Maybe we are putting too much importance on the logo. Although it should look good and reflect the mission of Conservapedia, I wonder if visitors to the site are really going to give the logo much more than a quick glance. I for one don't ever really pay much attention to a site's logo. I think I am going to do something similar to what you did for my next logo. ~ Sharon

: Tim, I agree. Yes, we are getting pretty hung up on this issue. The facts are that we can't use a globe because it's way to close to Wikipedia's logo and that we'll always scare a small amount of people away depending on the logo we have. Even so, this should not intimidate us from placing what we are about in the logo. For now, let's just keep putting out ideas that don't incorporate a globe. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:48, 8 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:CLOGOOO1.JPG]]

Tim, I took yours and edited it some. What do you think? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:15, 8 January 2007 (EST)
[[Image:Cross_flag_mine.png|150px]]

It is pretty good, I think that the color of the lettering needs to change, Dark Green maybe? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:28, 8 January 2007 (EST)

*That looks good Philip. I think the whole thing is a little fuzzy. That's OK for the background, but the lettering needs to be nice and crisp. Tim, I don't think that dark green lettering fits with the color scheme of this logo. Here is my version of this logo:

[[Image:Logo4.jpg|300px]]

Let me know what you think. Oh, and tell me if you want me to lay off the cross-in-C thing. Nobody commented on it so I just figured I'd keep using it, but if you don't like it please don't hesitate to tell me. I like this patriotic theme! It makes me think of the Fourth of July. :P ~ Sharon

'''Just Wondering'''
Does the logo have to include the word conservapedia? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:54, 8 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply''' I don't think so, but I usually include it because the logo doesn't seem to look complete without it. ~ Sharon

I was thinking that we could keep the logo seperate from the word. That way we can have the word above it or next to it or something, or we could decide to not have the word anywhere near it.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:00, 8 January 2007 (EST)

That would probably look better. I will see if I can come up with anything. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:03, 9 January 2007 (EST)

I should have mentioned this earlier, but the logo needs to be 135x135 pixels. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:14, 9 January 2007 (EST)

OK! ~ Sharon

How's This

[[Image:Conservapedia.JPG|Thumb|135Px]]

--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]] 22:21, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*I think we have decided not to use a globe on our logo because it is too much like Wikipedia's logo. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 06:38, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**Yes, we did. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:03, 16 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:ConservapediaLogo.gif]]

It's simple, but I think it is pretty cool. Tell me what you think....I can always modify it: slower, faster, different effect. [[User:David R|David R]]
*David, that's pretty cool but I think that anything animated would be very distracting when someone is trying to edit/read content on the site. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:36, 18 January 2007 (EST)

**Um, just a quick point here: while using the Cross is nice, you're going to have problems with the conservative Jews that may wish to use the site. Perhaps we should find a completely new idea that doesn't make our fellow ''conservatives'' uncomfortable. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 22:26, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-01-19T13:35:09Z

Katja N: /* American Spelling of Words */

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-01-19T04:57:24Z

Katja N: /* American Spelling of Words */

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-01-19T04:56:51Z

Katja N: /* American Spelling of Words */

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-01-19T04:21:57Z

Katja N: /* American Spelling of Words */

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-01-19T04:18:32Z

Katja N: /* American Spelling of Words */

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-01-19T04:08:56Z

Katja N: /* American Spelling of Words */

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-01-19T04:06:41Z

Katja N: /* American Spelling of Words */

User:Katja N

2007-01-19T03:48:58Z

Katja N:

[[Image:Hmchicken.gif]]

I'm Katerina

...I lurk around the site, editing people's spelling, punctuation, grammar, and sentence structure to my heart's content. (I can't help it; I work for an editor!) Write me if I do something drastic to your entry that you don't like.

----

2007-01-18T14:24:54Z

Katja N:

Taliban

2007-01-18T14:24:15Z

Katja N:

The Taliban is a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist movement which effectively ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, when United States forces invaded Afganistan and overthrew them.

The reason for invasion was that the Taliban had ties to al-Qaida (a militant Sunni Islamist organization), the group that is held responsible for the attacks on America, September 11th, 2001.

The Taliban's rule is characterized by the fact that women could not be educated, and the leaders were fanatically intolerant of other religions.

In addition, the Taliban had banned all forms of television, imagery, music and sports, which resulted in Afganistan being suspended from the year 2000 Olympics.

Ecumenical Movement

2007-01-18T14:16:59Z

Katja N:

During the twentieth century many religious leaders used the phrase "ecumenical movement" to describe various activities aimed at uniting churches and denominations. The ultimate goal of this union is to unite all professing Christians in the world. Some proponents even called for the union of all world religions. The most significant force in this movement is a federation, the World Council of Churches (WCC).

Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?

2007-01-18T14:15:17Z

Katja N: /* No. Not always: */

?????

Could you please give me an example of their liberal bias? I use Wikipedia all the time and it's always a reliable and in-depth encyclopedia.

'''Reply: There are some examples for you [[Wikipedia|here]]. Have a great day!
--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:23, 27 December 2006 (EST)'''

== Yes: ==

They censor non-Christian stuff. They're really, really biased. They only accept LIBERAL BIAS!

Please read this: [[Wikipedia]].

== No. Not always: ==

Simply because they are liberally biased does not always effect their reliability.

For example: I want to know President Reagan dates. I go onto Wikipedia. They will tell me. They may also tell me he was a bad president. But simply because "they" tell me that he was a bad president does not mean they are unreliable and what they told me about his dates isn’t solid fact.

Now, (still on Wikipedia) I want to know about Jesus. I look Him up in that little search engine, and what do I get? Junk. Because He’s controversial in today’s world.
Almost everyone has a blind side to controversial issues. This does not make Wikipedia bad, it merely shows that they are human.

In addition, (to the comment that Wikipedia censors Christian things) Conservepedia is biased against liberals and Islam. We probably censor things that we believe are wrong. Doesn't that affect our reliability?

I am not defending Wikipedia, I am just saying that it is often a reliable resource.

-this is fun!-
--[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:55, 17 January 2007 (EST)