Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay: Darwin fish meet the Question evolution! campaign

2011-11-30T21:00:56Z

MaxFletcher:

This animation is really really bad. Can't you find a better one? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:13, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::Don't worry, it appears given the [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-volunteers-are-joining-our.html expanding volunteer base] of a certain group, soon there will be animations/essays using [[piranha]] or schools of sharks. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:23, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::OK, but in the meantime this animation is terrible. It looks bad and moves even worse. Not a good image. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:29, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::::Why don't you ask [[Shockofgod]] if he likes it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:32, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::is it physically painful for you to respond like a normal human being? The animation is embarrassing and very amateur which makes your campaign look the same. Do you know anything about marketing? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:34, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Max, the evolutionist goal is poorly defended in the biology class stadiums and this is yet another case where biblical Christians are going to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvW5PuAVbmY slam goal after goal] in the atheist/naturalism net. It is going to be glorious! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:44, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::That's great. Now about this animation - it looks terribly amateur, is there another one you could use that looks more professional? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most United States high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. Just imagine how timid teachers will be when students are armed with the 15 questions plus any follow up questions that are developed!

"To be certain to take what you attack, attack where the enemy cannot defend." - Sun Tzu [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:57, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::So this is the best animation you have? You know, if this campaign is to work you need to have a certain amount of polish to it. It needs to be professional, slick and credible. The animation is none of this and, actually, looks stupid. So what image to you want to portray - one of professionalism or one that is amateur? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:00, 30 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Essay: Darwin fish meet the Question evolution! campaign

2011-11-30T20:50:59Z

MaxFletcher:

Talk:Essay: Darwin fish meet the Question evolution! campaign

2011-11-30T20:34:24Z

MaxFletcher:

Talk:Essay: Darwin fish meet the Question evolution! campaign

2011-11-30T20:29:07Z

MaxFletcher:

Talk:Essay: Darwin fish meet the Question evolution! campaign

2011-11-30T20:13:58Z

MaxFletcher: This animation is really really bad

This animation is really really bad. Can't you find a better one? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:13, 30 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Essay: PZ Myers, is your wife an atheist?

2011-11-30T00:32:50Z

MaxFletcher: /* Really? */

{{delete}} Bad taste [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:24, 28 November 2011 (EST)

== Really? ==

Is this what passes for intellectual discussion on this site? --[[User:Mentoc|Mentoc]] 17:27, 28 November 2011 (EST)
:It's an "Essay:". On any other site, it would pass for "Fun:" or "Parody:". [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 19:56, 28 November 2011 (EST)
::No, Mentoc, but it is all "Conservative" has done for the year I have been here. It is not fun or parody. It is more of "Conservative's" hateful attacks on people he disagrees with who are more prominent than he will ever be. Best to just walk away like I did and only come back when you have an idea to add to the encyclopedia part of the website. There is no community that is fun or nice to be part of and "Conservative" will only attack you too. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 09:54, 29 November 2011 (EST)
::: That's the impression I get too. Conservative claims he makes these articles for the sake of humour, but it feels more like an excuse to make outlandish or abstract arguments against atheism, such as suggesting that their views make them bad at dancing, or that their weight issues demonstrate a lack of scientific knowledge. I find this article especially confusing. These prominent atheists having religious partners suggests that atheists and religious people can have friendly, loving and accommodating relationships with one another. But rather than dwell on that rather heart warming notion, he instead uses these relationships to suggest that atheists can't even convince their own wives to abandon religion. Apart from the obvious flaw in this argument (the wives haven't even been able to convince their own husbands either), this just seems like a sad, depressing way to regard relationships. Should Conservapedia really be providing these sorts of windows into the minds of its more essentric members? [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 13:12. 29 November 2011 (EST)
:::::Maninahat, where have I ever said that weight issues demonstrate a lack of scientific knowledge or that atheism makes people to be bad dancers? Second, many atheists are constantly talking about how atheists are smarter, etc. The atheist [[David Silverman]] has a marketing degree and he is paid to market/sell atheism for the [[American Atheists]] organization. I just think it is humorous that he has been unable to close the sale in terms of his wife being atheist. :) Plus, Wired magazine did say that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged males and I do find the issue of the etiology of atheism to be interesting as do others. :) Lastly, PZ Myers and other New Atheists are constantly talking about how religion infects people's minds and makes them stupid or act stupid as can be seen [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfXbnygJirc HERE]. I just think it would be funny if PZ Myers with his supposedly "healthy" and "unstupified" mind was unable to convince his wife that atheism was valid. By the way, has PZ Myers answered the other questions posed yet. :) I don't think so! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 29 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::Does PZ Myers care what or even know of the questions you posed? I don't think so! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:28, 29 November 2011 (EST)
Mad Max, thank you for confirming that [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLkjbB99HTU&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL598E39244DF6542F Atheism is madness] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:22, 29 November 2011 (EST)
:Back to accusing me of being an atheist again? Ho hum. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:32, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Essay: PZ Myers, is your wife an atheist?

2011-11-29T22:28:30Z

MaxFletcher: /* Really? */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-11-28T03:27:20Z

MaxFletcher: /* wisdom teeth */

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]

===Cavemen and wolves===
"If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false"
Cavemen did NOT create a new species; dogs and wolves are the same species, as they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Recently, scientists have domesticated foxes, and they have developed dog-like characteristics, like changes in colouration and an increased affection and trust towards humans. --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
That is because macroevolution takes a lot longer, within the magnitude of at least millions of years. Evolution does not imply that it would be possible to directly observe one species changing to another. That is why fossil records are used. These clearly show that microevolution gradually builds up to macroevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution follow exactly the same principle. If you say that microevolution has been observed, then the only thing that would stop macroevolution from occuring would be a very young earth (which several areas of science have independently disproven)--[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:18, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:If dogs and wolves are the same species, then the domestic dog had to have come from the gray wolf, exactly as scientists have been stating for years. Before the edit gets reverted again, someone here is going to provide proof of a scientific experiment in which a dog has been bred from a pair of wolves. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:36, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::Please define "Dog", you definition is far to vague for any scientific purpose.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

===Basic logic?===
''"Species are groups of animals that can freely interbreed. A group of animals that can freely interbreed are C. lupus (dogs and wolves). Thus, dogs and wolves are same species. Basic logic."'' Fine, FCapra. Now you show me a male and a female wolf that mated together and produced a basset hound. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:46, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:Explain to me how two wolves can breed together and produce a wolf genetically identical to a third, unrelated wolf. When you can do this, I will see your point.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:53, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::You're missing the point here, FCapra. Evolutionists have stated for years that the domestic dog was created by the breeding of wolves, and done by cavemen. You're stating that both animals are the same species. Yet, if I breed wolves, all I'm going to get are wolf pups. If I breed German shepherds, I'm not going to get St. Bernards, I'm not going to get Boston terriers, and I'm not going to get chihuahuas. Strange as it may seem I'm going to go out on a scientific limb here and hypothesize that if I breed German shepherds, I'm going to end up with a litter of German shepherd pups. That is called logic.
::And it's also proven that dogs can interbreed with coyotes (''Canis latrans''), the Ethiopian wolf (''Canis simensis''), and the golden jackal (''Canis aureus''), as well as several other members of ''Canis''. Does that mean that those other Canids must be regarded as the same species? Or did a lawyer representing the big bad wolf file a copyright-infringement lawsuit? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:16, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::Coyotes/wolf hybrids show a marked decrease in offspring viability after several generations, and jackal hybrids don't occur in the wild and also suffer reduced fertility and genetic abnormailties. Wolfdogs have no decrease in viability or fertility, and occur (relatively)commonly where feral dog and wolf populations overlap. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 23:26, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::::Then start breeding wolves. Show me the dogs that come out of it. If it's so easy a caveman can do it, then so can you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:31, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::::I can't breed wolf A and wolf B together to get wolf C, I get wolf AB. Sometimes, I might get a mutant wolf AB+, but it will never be wolf C. Eventually, I could get a domestic pack canine, but it wouldn't be a dog.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 23:52, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::::::And if you get those mutants, and eventually kept breeding to a hoped-for critter you can call "Rover", you would have proved beyond all doubt the fact of intelligent design. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:54, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::"Beyond all doubt" is extremely strong language. In fact, it's more like "have done absolutely nothing to prove or disprove intelligent design", because I am still working with natural mechanisms. Intelligent design relies on non-materialistic explanations to natural phenomena. Also, 1 singular case does not constitute enough evidence to support something "beyond all doubt". I would however, provide evidence that mutations can produce meaningful changes in organisms which help them survive in certain circumstances, such as a symbiotic relationship with a human. And just FYI, wild wolf puppies can be domesticated by humans.[http://web.archive.org/web/20071005105327/http://www.wolfpark.org/training/index.html] [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 12:26, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::Also, while wolves haven't been bred into dogs yet, it only took 40 years of selective breeding to produce domesticated, dog-like foxes[http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/1999/2/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/2]. It's logical that the same would apply to wolves.
:::::::Thor Heyerdahl proved it was possible for South American natives to sail to south Pacific islands; he did not prove that this had in fact happened. Current scientific consensus is that domestic dogs are descended from wolves, and as you and many others have said, they should belong to the same species - ''Canis lupus''. I don't see a fox's bushy tail in those two Latin words. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Do you have any evidence that it didn't '''and''' couldn't happen? Then you have a reasonable counterexample. All the mechanisms for domestication exist in wolves and foxes, wolves can be trained by humans, foxes have been domesticated, and foxes and wolves are similar genetically (both are in the Canidae family). There is no evidence that domestication of wolves is impossible, but in theory, it is entirely possible over the course of a few thousand years. Is there any evidence that human domestication of wolves is literally impossible, and not just unlikely? If not, than human domestication of wolves is a possibility, and can't really be used as a counterexample against evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:23, 14 November 2011 (EST)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that it be removed from this page. Honestly looking at this page, it appears that this picture might have been added as parody to deface what is otherwise an excellent debunking of evolution. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:For now I have removed the photo in question, although I am willing to have a discussion on this, but please if you revert this change provide at least one reason why it should be in the article. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== Improving article ==

Hi jcw. I'd really like to improve this article, because a lot of the arguments in it are outdated or fallacious. I think we should cut out a lot of the more silly ones and focus more on promising things like irreducible complexity. Can I give you a list (with explanations) of which examples I think should go? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:10, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:There are a couple of changes that I think would improve this, that's for sure. There are a couple of duplications, for example the flagellum is mentioned under two separate categories. I think we should remove one entry and expand the other one to include a lot more of Michael Behe's work on it and some rebuttals of Ken Miller's attack on him. Also the last one, about scientists proving that the chicken came before the egg - I think that should go, because I suspect it's a parody anyway. It certainly isn't true. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::There's always room for reasonable discussion here on CP, so please go ahead. As you've seen, it's very much advisable to discuss your ideas before wading in - it might not be obvious to a new user, but the articles are frequently targeted by vandals and trolls, so we tend to be very cautious about changes. Nevertheless, we all want to see the most effective arguments used in the article, so as long as it's clear that that's our goal we shouldn't have any problems. I recommend pairing suggestions for removal with suggestions for addition, as you've both begun to do above. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Great, thanks for the advice! I've taken out one reference to the flagellum and added some information to the remaining one (under Irreducible Complexity, where it fits better.) I've just ordered Prof Behe's book, so hopefully in a week or so I can add a bit more detail without having to rely on dubious sources. Do you think it would be OK if I removed the statement about chickens and eggs? I'm 99% sure somebody put that in as a joke, and 100% sure that it's wrong. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't know whether it's true or not, but the chicken/egg point is supported by a link to a news story. Not the best source perhaps, but before removing it I'd follow the source up and see if it's reliable. Your flagellum edit seems reasonable to me - the observation does fit better in its new place. I look forward to more progress. Thanks for taking it slowly; it makes everyone's lives easier. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:38, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I read the news story and I think it's a bit misleading. The impression I get is that the research was really about materials and the chicken and egg comments were a bit of a joke on the part of the researchers. They're mechanical engineers, not biologists, so they're not really qualified to comment. Also the story is from the Daily Mail. Their hearts are generally in the right place, but unfortunately the Mail is a bit like the National Enquirer with spellcheck. I really think this should come out. We have plenty of good refutations of evolution, and I think saying things like this has the potential to do more harm than good. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:50, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::It certainly seems like a weak and unsupported argument to me; I'd be happy to see it removed, but of course I can't speak for anyone else. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I took it out. I think we achieved a concensus on it, even if it was only a concensus of two. Nobody else seems to object so far. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:01, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) This article seems to have been pretty lively over the last few days, for all sorts of wrong reasons. I'm new here, but I have to say something pretty blunt: it's not a good article. There seems to be an emphasis on quantity over quality. A lot of the arguments presented are so weak that I have to suspect they're strawmen or parodies inserted by evolutionists. We have about ten really good arguments that are more than enough to refute evolutionism, but we have hardly any detail on them: irreducible complexity only has a few sentences, for example. On the other hand there are a lot of EXTREMELY poor arguments, such as the old chestnut about males and females of a species having to coincidentally evolve together. I'm sorry, but present that argument to any evolutionist and he's going to laugh in your face then take you to pieces. Their theory CAN explain that, and within the naturalist framework they restrict science to they can explain it extremely well. Evolution is a scientific theory and it stands or falls on the evidence. We HAVE the evidence to defeat it, so why do we need to expose ourselves to ridicule by talking unscientific rubbish about the order in which chickens return to their coops? Sorry for the rant, but the latest troll really annoyed me. Not because what he said was wrong, but because so much of it wasn't. Why do we have this compulsion to make ourselves easy targets? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
:Does anybody have a problem if I return this article to SamCoulter's last edit? I've done some reading and I think he's on the right track as far as improving it goes, even if he's sadly not able to be with us right now. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:20, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth ''do'' get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::''we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed.'' That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Seems like science has proven that we most certainly do not have the perfect number of teeth for a civilized lifestyle, as changes in our diet have lead to jaw shortening and crooked teeth as a result[http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/11/crooked-teeth-blame-early-farmer.html#.Tsq5ffhCjyQ.reddit]. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:38, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
::::::::If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

This discussion is veering towards argument. Max, please try to stay civil and respectful. As the possessor of a full set of wisdom teeth, I don't see what the fuss is about. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:No, it is not veering towards an argument and I have been completely civil and respectful. The article currently states ''the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.'' when in the majority of people the the teeth ''are'' over-crowded hence the prevalence of wisdom teeth removal and braces. Wisdom teeth don't need removing in every case but will still be impacted. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Max, you surely accept that we live in a fallen world in which imperfection is the norm? But imperfection implies a perfect model from which the imperfect deviates; that perfect model is God's design, a design which we can clearly infer parts of, even from our imperfect world. You're wrong to imply that all or most people need the wisdom teeth removing or to wear braces. I understand that's more common in the USA, but here in Britain it's very rare to wear braces and wisdom teeth are often left in. This clearly shows us that the pre-Fall design had a perfect number of teeth - even in a fallen world, a substantial proportion of people do have exactly the right number of teeth. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I know exactly what you're saying, but my point is that for most people in most of human history we DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. What if God made it that way to help us survive, and now it's going wrong because of dentistry? We can't uninvent toothpaste, and if He uninvented wisdom teeth how long do you think it would be before Dawkins was yowling "There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!" My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::If we take what you have said above as read then the entry ''still'' needs editing because a) you are saying pre-fall we were perfect but the entry is in the present tense suggesting it is still perfect and b) many people do not have the perfect number of teeth and whether or not wisdom are left in doesn't mean that are not impacted - it just means they are left in. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::''e DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw.'' As to this - teeth don't move - if I lost a front a tooth my wisdom teeth would still impact at the back. It is the ''jaw'' that is too small for the number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Yes, but we can survive without front teeth as long as we can still chew food properly. The wisdom teeth would compensate for lost molars, which have a more complex shape and would be more likely to be lost without modern dentistry. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::(Edit conflict) In response to Max's comments earlier, braces are not used to alter the number of teeth, but to align them better. As to the removal of wisdom teeth, it seems likely that there are removed more often than necessary, just as tonsils were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think there's a lot of truth in that: I was in the British Army and they remove pretty much everybody's wisdom teeth as a routine, whether it's necessary or not. They can cause problems though. I had mine out before I joined, because I was in a lot of pain. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:33, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes but they are out of line in many cases because the jaw is too small. Also wisdom don't always need removing but will still grow sideways (impact). I defer to you Andy but we certainly don't have a perfect number of teeth - perhaps due to the fall as suggested above. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:32, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I have the perfect number of teeth - 28! I have never had and (I am told by my dentist) never will have the last four molars. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Raptorex ==

I've done some reading on this and it looks like Raptorex is rejected by most palaeontologists, so it's inaccurate to say that it's causing changes in evolutionary theory. Does anyone have any better information on it? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:24, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, it's pretty much rejected. It does seem to be a juvenile tyrannosaurid rather than a separate species. I think this one should come out. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 11:03, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

== Bats ==

I'm not sure about the bat example under irreducible complexity. Of the two families of bats, one doesn't echolocate at all but is still fully capable of flight (the megabats.) Given that, is it a good idea to insist that evolutionism says flight and echolocation must have evolved together? It looks like they'd be able to argue that this was a strawman and much as it pains me to say it, they'd be right. It doesn't look like an important argument, so maybe we shouldn't make it. Any thoughts? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oops, I just noticed this: "an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)" Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Several ground shrews use echolocation too. Regardless, bats don't need sonar to fly, so this isn't an example of irreducible complexity. It should really be removed. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::FYI, anyone who deletes an item needs to update the number of examples at the top of the page. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==

During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted SamCoulter's legitimate edits and blocked him. Not sure what my schedule is going to be like in the near term and I am hoping that now that this editor is unblocked that he will choose to get involved in this talk page. That may be wishful thinking, but I did undo the block one day letter. If others want to pick up where SamCoulter left off, I would not be in opposition to this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:That's OK, I understand that there were some problems at the time. Just, you know, don't be so quick on the trigger from now on? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Other than add some pictures and a little content, I have had very limited involvement in this article. I don't have the inclination to get involved in this article due to my current priorities so I will let you work out your differences with the other editors. My apologies if you were taken out temporarily due to some "friendly blocking fire" during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm "Broken arrow"] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Artistic beauty argument ==

Personally I don't think that autumn leaves DID exist before there were men to see them. Autumn leaves are dead, and death didn't exist before the Fall. As for marine fish, there are plenty of reasons for them to have beautiful colours that don't have anything to do with how good they look to men. Fish have a wonderful ability to swim in coordinated schools, and coloured flanks can obviously help them do that. Most fish fade to grey as soon as they die - and they die when we catch them - so I doubt that God made their colours for us to look at. I think He made their colours for other fish to see, as a navigation aid. It's not that I think I can refute this argument; I just don't think it IS an argument. Sorry. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:42, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, ''"death didn't exist before the fall"''?
:So in the days, months or years before the fall not a single leaf from a single tree ''ever'' worked it's way loose from its parent and fell to the ground?
:If "death didn't exist" for plants (of all things) then all the "green things" G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook?
:You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined "life." Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that "life" is usually equated to "having the breath of life.") Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no "death" as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was "no death before the fall" hence no autumnal foliage. If trees weren't things that were alive to the writer(s) of the Creation texts then how could the effects have been wrought by things (G-d created things, no less) such as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (or the Tree of Life, for that matter)?
:::Nice try, Benp, but we know that we once had much more knowledge than we currently do...the writers of the Creation history knew better than us that trees are "alive".
:::No. Better that we should re-examine our dogmas than to succumb to metaphysical gymnastic logics to prop them up. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:19, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::But were there seasons in the garden of Eden? From what I understand before the fall it was a constant, perfect temperature and climate. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:04, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::That's always been my understanding too, so I wouldn't have expected leaves to fall. The definition of life is a tricky one though. Perhaps the animals only ate enough of the plant that it could keep growing, so didn't die? I know that when cows graze they don't eat the roots of the grass, so it can grow again. Of course that argument would also apply to falling leaves, wouldn't it? The leaves die but the tree itself doesn't. OK, I'll have to rethink that one! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Thanks for the fascinating discussion. Regardless, evolution cannot explain artistic beauty in nature, whether it existed before man or not. Indeed, most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature, which is one reason why it becomes such a dreary, negative belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::As an aside though, were there seasons in the Garden of Eden? If not there would never have been autumn leaves which means there artistic beauty comes not from Gods perfect handy work but from the flaws in the post -fall world. An interesting idea and I am sure there is much discussion to be had. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:41, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature" Andy, I can't believe you get away with bald assertions like that. It's pretty solid rhetoric, though. Just keep challenging dissenters with assumptions and dismiss counter-examples as outliers. I'm positive the statement could not be disproved to your satisfaction. Never mind that you never proved it. That's why most people have trouble taking Conservapedia seriously. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Brad, the existence of artistic beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of functional evolution. If you know of any evolutionists who accept the existence of artistic beauty in nature, then please do post some examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: Atheists like Stephen Hawking, David Attenborough and, more recently, Brian Cox go to great pains to extol the beauty and rhythm of the universe and nature. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I disagree that the existence of beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Many evolutionists have written about the role of beautiful plumage in birds and how evolution could produce this beauty. I think some have even proposed that we evolved to find the world beautiful because those who thought it ugly were more prone to depression and less likely to survive. We all know they're wrong, but their argument is valid if you only allow naturalistic explanations, which is what their whole model is based on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:36, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature." Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: "After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life." - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" his enthusiasm for the beauty of nature is very obvious; it's debatable whether Sagan was an atheist or not, but he was most certainly an evolutionist. Exactly the same can be said for Brian Cox's recent productions. My personal experience is that most evolutionists DO see beauty in nature; they just don't believe it was designed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:03, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your quote does not say the world is beautiful. Evolution is a theory based on ''functionality''. How would an evolutionist explain how beauty arose?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word "beautiful" in that quote, but he uses it several times in an interview with Der Spiegel, at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,748673,00.html. Evolutionists also argue that the universe wasn't made to be beautiful so much as we evolved to find it beautiful, simply because we live in it. I don't believe that's true, but within the evolutionary framework it's a valid argument and they can ue it as an effective counter. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 09:50, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==

SamCoulter, I remember watching a PBS Nature show and the show admitted that evolutionist don't have a clue how bee social behavior evolved. Afterwards, the local PBS fundraisers were dumbfounded/shocked the show admitted this and they were like liberal evolutionists deer in the headlights. So I think you are way off base. I briefly wanted to offer [http://books.google.com/books?id=zJzC7nfAMWEC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&source=bl&ots=xAVwcJihMN&sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&hl=en&ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&source=bl&ots=XUGsWfPVCY&sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&hl=en&ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors.

Also this:

"An interesting example of the Fibonacci series in nature is regarding bees. Some unique facts about Bees are that males are produced by the queen's unfertilized eggs, so they have only a mother, no father. The females, however, have both a father and a mother. Start by imagining one male worker bee, then figure out how many parents, how many grand-parents and how many great-grand-parents he would have. Working this out you can show that the number of bees of each generation follow a Fibonacci series exactly, both for males and females. No this is not the twilight zone, this is the intellegent arranging God has done in the real world."[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, no way can they explain bee social behaviour. They can explain the caste system though, as long as they accept Dawkins' gene-level selection theory (which is controversial even among evolutionists.) Ironically it comes down to what you said about male bees (drones) only having a mother. Evolutionists who follow Dawkins say that because drones share all their DNA with the queen, they can spread that DNA without reproducing as long as they serve the queen. It's actually a logically consistent argument, but bee behaviour like honey dances can't be explained by evolution. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
It's funny you should bring up [[Richard Dawkins]]. Are you interested in creating a [[Elevatorgate]] article. If you do write up an article, don't forget to mention that atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc.

Here are some sources:

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Ha ha, I hadn't heard about that! I've read some other stuff on it as well now, including PZ Myers' comments, and it seems they're all at each other's throats. That could make a pretty good article, and I might have a shot at it as soon as I work out how. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Altruism ==

I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book "The selfish gene" from the argument on altruism, because in fact Dawkins doesn't deny altruism in animals and the book has a whole chapter discussing it. Dawkins regularly makes a fool of himself talking about evolution and religion, and the reason is that he's not qualified in either subject. What he actually is, is an ethologist (studies animal behaviour) and I have to grudgingly admit that he's quite good at that, so he's not really in a position to deny altruism because it obviously exists. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Devil's Advocate ==

I'd like to spark some discussion on this article by pointing out which arguments can be easily countered by evolutionists (yes, many of them can, unfortunately) and which ones are definite refutations of evolutionary theory (yes, we have plenty of those too.) What I plan to do is list every example with its evolutionist refutation if applicable and my opinion on what we should do with it. Please contribute as much as you can. Anyway here's the list (apologies for the massive edit):

Logical examples

1. This example assumes that the rate of extinctions has remained constant. While the theory of evolution doesn't make any statements on this, it incorporates data from other sciences such as paleontology that claim there have been massive spikes in extinction rates, including one that's happening now. Weak argument - should be removed.

2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed.

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

4. Evolution can explain this and would point out that the eyes found in species they claim to be closely related tend to be similar while those found in species they claim to be distantly related are much less similar, e.g. vertebrates and cephalopods have different eye structures. They also claim that eyes have clear survival benefits and are likely to evolve. This is a dubious argument and needs discussion.

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

9. Based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (and, to some extent, on arguments between evolutionists.) What LEVEL are traits benefitting? Lying might not benefit the human race as a whole but it can certainly benefit the liar. Dubious and needs more discussion.

10. Based on a factual error. The dog is NOT a separate species; it's Canis lupus familiaris, a sub-species of the wolf. Dubious and needs discussed.

Lack of mechanism

1. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and many animals have a demonstrated ability to sense imminent earthquakes. A bit dubious and needs to be expanded.

2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of "information" you use, for a start. Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with disorder; it refers to energy available for work. Ice is much more ordered than liquid water but has higher entropy. This is a common misunderstanding and one that evolutionists like to jump all over. The information part needs to be expanded; the entropy bit needs to go.

3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?

4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.

:Evolution can explain why animals migrate but not how they are able to navigate by instinct. They can give a believable explanation for how an animal might evolve a mechanism capable of finding its way over long distances, but not how information is already loaded into that system when the animal is born. I agree it's not the strongest example in the world, but I don't think it's as weak as you seem to. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation.

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps?

8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.

9. Should be merged with 8 and not emphasised so much. Evolutionists can put forward MANY explanations for why these things would be favoured, but what they can't explain is how we're able to do them in the first place.

10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.

11. This is factually inaccurate. Birds don't even HAVE X and Y chromosomes (they have Z and W) and the evolutionary argument would be that if two groups evolved sexual reproduction separately there's no reason why their chromosomes should follow the same pattern. This needs to be cleaned up and focused on the fact that the alleged common ancestor of birds and mammals was ALREADY reproducing sexually, which evolutionists can't explain.

12. This one is easily answered. An evolutionist would say that the fish gradually colonised colder water as they evolved resistance to low temperatures. Weak and should be removed.

13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?

14. Animals like isolated places because they tend to be safe, and lots of them can climb better than we can. Very weak and should be removed.

Maladaptation

1. This only applies to box jellyfish and the reason they come close to the beach at this time is well understood: that's when they spawn. Fallacious example and should be removed.

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

3. Can anyone name any benefits of the prostate surrounding the urethra? The theory of evolution actually states that there are many examples of poor design that natural selection CAN'T eliminate because it can't go back and start again. Dubious and needs discussion.

4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed.

5. Strong example.

6. This assumes that HIV and other pathogens aren't evolving too. Evolutionists say that they are, and it's obvious that they do undergo adaptation. A fairly weak example that should probably be removed.

7. Does schizophrenia make people less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? If not there is no reason why natural selection would eliminate it. Potentially interesting but needs some discussion.

8. Very, very dubious. Male pattern baldness HAS been observed in other species - orangs and chimps - and does it actually make men less likely to find a mate? Does it tend to appear after the reproductive peak has already passed? This should PROBABLY go, but may benefit from more information.

9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

4. Again, the theory of evolution states that natural selection can't work backwards and therefore often has to make the best of a bad job rather than produce a perfect design. Weak and should be removed.

5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.

6. Possibly false and certainly irrelevant; evolution doesn't necessarily predict human improvement and the short timeline claim assumes very strict uniformitarianism. Weak and should go.

7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.

8. True but irrelevant; evolutionary theory doesn't recognise devolution, just evolution in different directions. They will say that if an organism becomes more adapted by losing genetic information, it's evolved. Pretty weak and should perhaps go.

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.

3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected and the vast majority of fossils, even claimed transitionals, are NOT frauds. Not especially strong but should probably stay.

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

6. See 3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected. Also this is vergin on being a duplicate. Should be merged with 3.

7. There are lots of hominid fossils that are clearly genuine. Those beings existed. The big question is, were they actually human ancestors or not? Evolutionists say yes; we say no. Potentially strong but needs expansion.

Paradoxical fossils

1. Is Raptorex actually questioning any evolutionary assumptions? It seems like most palaeontologists reject the Raptorex classification and say it's a juvenile tyrannosaurid. Weak and should probably go, unless anyone can add anything.

Irreducible Complexity

1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.

:Evolutionists have lots of examples for intermediate wings in mammals, such as sugar gliders, but not in birds. It looks to me like they can give an evolutionary explanation for bats but not birds. I think this example should stay if that's clarified. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Ostriches use their wings for balance when running at high speed. Obviously that's not proof of evolution, but it's a demonstrable use of wings that aren't capable of flight. I still think this one just leaves us open to attack and should be removed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:48, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

5. The eye isn't. Even a non-imaging eye has lots of uses and are found in many species. If they didn't help the organism they wouldn't have been designed in. This is another example that evolutionists love.

6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.

9. Social insects; a very good example but the argument about workers not reproducing should be removed. They share their entire genome with the queen, so by helping her reproduce they ARE reproducing their own DNA.

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?

3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.

4. Without a definition of "kind" this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.

5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.

6. I don't think a 24-hour circadian cycle defies materialistic explanations at all; in fact it makes perfect sense on a planet with a 24-hour rotation. On the other hand if someone can come up with examples of a WEEKLY cycle in non-humans that would be very strong.

7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.

I realise that I'm proposing removing a majority of the examples, but the ones that I think should go are ones that I've seen evolutionists give plausible answers to in a materialist framework (which is, after all, where they're working and therefore where we need to combat them to win over their followers) and I don't think they should be used. In compensation, the remaining examples are all inarguable and many of them can be expanded, so in my opinion the article would be a lot more solid and informative. Anyway, please let me know what you think and contribute any specialist knowledge you have. Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I plan to study each of your points carefully, and will respond to the first ten now (the logical counterexamples):

:#It seems implausible that the rate of extinction would vary enormously, but even if it did, it would still exceed the rate of the generation of new species.
:#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#But the eye is remarkably similar across species that have no direct evolutionary connection, such as humans and cats and eagles. The human eye and and an eagle's eye have the same weight!
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#This is a valid point. Male and female versions of species must evolve separately, yet at the same time, and in a complementary manner. It's like lightening striking twice at the same place, at the same time of day, etc. Doesn't happen, and certainly not repeatedly so (for many species).
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Evolution does have a problem explaining why so many self-destructive people and personalities exist. A liar typically ends up hurting himself as well as others. An addict is even worse. They should not exist under evolution.
:#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.

:Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:

::4. According to evolutionary theory humans, cats and eagles actually have a very close connection: they're all vertebrates, and all vertebrates have the same basic design of eye right down to the same features that evolutionists describe as flaws, such as the inverted retina. On the other hand no NON-vertebrate has the same basic design; cephalopods have a very similar eye in almost every respect, but the retina isn't inverted. Within the naturalistic model, they can explain this very well.

::7. Evolutionists would argue that males and females aren't evolving separately, because they're all part of the same population. Changes between generations would be very small, so it's unlikely that incompatibility would emerge with such a small change. Honestly, they LIKE it when people use this as a counter-argument because they're all over it. It would be better to focus on how sexual reproduction evolved in the first place, because they can't answer that. They can explain WHY it would evolve, because it has all sorts of advantages, but not HOW. The question of males and females of a species evolving together, though, is something they see as trivial and often amusing, and anyone reading it here and using it in a debate is likely to emerge feeling quite battered.

::9. Game theory has a lot of explanations of how lying can be a benefit. Addiction is an interesting one: it's been argued that addiction to certain things - fat and sugar, mostly - was a survival benefit for early man, because these were scarce high-value foods and people who went to the effort of finding them were more likely to survive. Current obesity epidemics have been blamed on humans retaining a low-level addiction to them now that they're widely available. Addiction to things that are simply harmful is probably more difficult for them to explain though. Anyway I'll revise my position on this one and say that it's not as clear as I initially thought.

::10. Dogs are classified as a sub-species of wolf (Canis lupus,) not as a separate species. They're often referred to as Canis familiaris, but the correct names are C. lupus familiaris and C. lupus dingo, with the species remaining C. lupus.

::My experience is that of a creationist who grew up in the UK and spent most of my adult life in the British Army, which is a pretty aggressively secular environment. Evolution is much more widely believed and there are very few creationists (I don't know where the BBC got their poll figures from; every other poll puts belief in evolution at about 80% and "don't knows" as half the rest) and evolution is taught in a lot of detail in schools. I've had some fairly bruising experiences when I've used what I thought were good arguments and then promptly been beaten down. As a result I've studied evolutionary theory quite a bit, just to find out what it says; lots of creationists sadly have a pretty shallow knowledge of it, which makes it easy for them to allege straw man tactics on our part. Even Michael Behe fell victim to this at the Dover trial; he's done a lot of excellent work on something that really is irreducibly complex (the flagellum) but when he concluded that the immune system was also irreducibly complex he didn't read deeply enough, and he fell down quite badly; the evolutionists stacked up a huge pile of research showing that it isn't, and this terminally damaged his credibility with the judge. There really ARE fatal flaws in the theory of evolution, but a lot of them aren't quite what we think they are. I'm very wary of putting forward arguments that can be countered, because it may make them question the reliability of the site where they found those arguments - which is us. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 10:31, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' "explanations" are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.

::: As to the specific points:

::::4 - the point is that a very broad and diverse range of species have virtually identical eyes that could only have evolved long after the existence of their supposedly common ancestor. That's simply implausible for the same thing of enormous complexity to evolve independently in very different species.

::::7 - yes, evolutionists try to answer tough questions by saying that populations, not individuals, evolve, but that does not solve the dilemma. It reminds me of how evolutionists will inject the passage of more time to try to fix the implausibility of some of their arguments, when more time often does not help. Moreover, once evolutionists admit that Adam and Eve did not originate as individuals, but only as some type of population, then the theory directly conflicts with Christianity and is even forbidden by the Catholic Church. So evolutionists typically avoid admitting that their theory denies the existence of Adam and Eve.

::::9 - again, this is an issue of plausibility. Let evolutionists claim implausibly that addiction is part of survival of the fittest, with addicts surviving, and watch them lose any persuasive effect they had.

::::10 - I'll check with an expert on dogs and wolves. I think there may be disagreement about their classification. If so, then this could be omitted from the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:37, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::I REALLY have to disagree with you on that one! Most evolutionists don't avoid mentioning that their theory says Adam and Eve didn't exist, and the rest even use it as a joke, such as "Mitochondrial Eve." I'm not sure what the USA is like but in the UK it's quite routine to deny that Adam and Eve existed, even among most christians. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:52, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::The "joke" may be a way of avoiding the issue. Can you link to clear statements by evolutionists that Adam and Eve could not have existed as first humans under the [[theory of evolution]]? You might have a hard time finding such statements by leading evolutionists, because it conflicts directly with [[Christianity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::"Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all." - Richard Dawkins, "The root of all evil?" "There was no Adam. There was no Eve." - PZ Myers, "Pharyngula," 22 Jun 10. The fact is that no published scientific paper is even going to mention them because they're outside the naturalistic framework, but in public statements most evolutionists are quite happy to deny the existence of Adam and Eve and couldn't care less that it contradicts the bible. This even applies to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller. Adam and Eve lived about 6,000 years ago and evolutionists claim that modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, so the idea that they were real people and the ancestors of us all is ruled out from the start. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I can't find a direct quote from Miller denying the existence of Adam and Eve (although I didn't have much time to search last night) but there MAY be one in his book "Finding Darwin's God." That (as well as many of his public speeches) certainly contains several denials of the literal truth of Genesis and numerous statements of his belief that humans evolved. I'll try to have another look later. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 01:14, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

This is like boxing against dough. JMairs seems to have put a lot of work in here, along the lines I was planning to do before the Fun Police stamped on me. What's the response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It seems like nobody cares about this article until somebody has the temerity to try to improve it, at which point they'll be immediately blocked and forced to grovel and ritually humiliate themselves just to be allowed the privilege of RESTRICTED editing rights again. You know what? I'm PROUD to be a Conservative! Yes, PROUD! I actually kissed Margaret Thatcher's hand once. But trying to contribute to this site is like slamming my fists pointlessly into a sack full of wet, yeast-impregnated wet flour. It's like kicking sandbags. It's like headbutting a dead walrus. Whatever I do, I step on someone's toes and get blocked for it. Andy Schlafly has responded positively to my ideas, even if we don't agree about everything, but what do the sysadmins do? Block, revert, revert, block. Trying to achieve anything here is like suffocating inside a giant squid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

: Sam, I responded in detail to JMairs' first ten points, and discussed them further. I plan to get to the remaining points once we're through discussing the first ten.

::No offence, but you didn't go into very much detail on any of his points and you were pretty dismissive on a couple of them where there is real grounds for debate. Separate evolution of males and females for example. Any evolutionary biologist WILL stamp all over that argument. Their theory doesn't require separate evolution at all, and insisting that it does just makes us slow fat ducks. I KNOW the theory - I studied it for four excrutiating years - and they really do not see an issue with this. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:24, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:JMairs, Christianity is based on one Adam and Eve. So I wouldn't be surprised if Miller lacks an express, public denial of their existence, because it's virtually impossible to make sense of the Gospels and the Crucifixion without the original sin by Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids teaching that Adam and Eve somehow did not exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

I'd like to make a small edit to the example on vestigial organs. While it is true that every organ in the human body serves a purpose, the evolutionist meaning of "vestigial" is NOT useless; it merely means no longer used for its original purpose. For example the appendix is part of the immune system in human infants; most evolutionists acknowledge this, but claim that it's still vestigial because in their opinion it used to be a caecum, used for digesting cellulose. Clearly there is no evidence for this, but the inclusion of an incorrect statement (i.e. Vestigial = Useless) in this counterexample leaves it open to attack on the grounds of creating a strawman. Unfortunately the Fun Police have told me that I'm not allowed to edit this article but I hereby ask for permission to make this change. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:33, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:Don't bother, this page is so hopelessly divorced from scientific reasoning, it really can't be salvaged. Most the the examples are either completely false or hopelessly divorced from actual evolution theory. The "Fun Police" know that if they actually let people correct the counter-examples, there would be about 3 examples left. Just for example, male nipples are completely vestigial, as are your ear muscles and the plica semilunaris (third eyelid). And even though the appendix is not completely useless, it still fits within the theory of evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:21, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::This is my concern. I'm guessing that you're probably an evolutionist. Well I'm not, but I do have a BSc in evolutionary biology from Glasgow University, and I'm not so demented as to think evolution is a liberal plot aimed at turning Christians into homosexual CNN presenters. Most evolutionists are good, honest scientists who sincerely believe that their theory is correct, and within the naturalist worldview they follow they have flawed but coherent arguments. Similarly most atheists aren't maniacs who want to convert children into drug-addicted Satanist male prostitutes. Sure they want to turn people away from Jesus and his offer of salvation, but they think they're doing the right thing. I disagree with evolutionists and atheists (and yes, I know the two aren't equivalent) but I've learned to respect their sincerity. I want Conservapedia to be a resource that will convince them that we DO have a valid worldview. This article should be reduced to about a dozen good, solid examples that Neo-Darwinism really can't explain, and it should present them in depth. 80% of the examples on here now just make us look like window lickers on the Sunshine Bus. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:36, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Vestigial does mean useless supposedly due to evolution. Look it up in a good dictionary. Of course evolutionists try to change the meaning of words to avoid admitting they're wrong. That doesn't change the fact they are wrong.

:::Nobody claims that most atheists are "maniacs", but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, "vestigial" does NOT mean useless according to evolutionary theory. Yes, they have an agenda: they have a worldview that they honestly believe is correct, and they want everyone to accept what they see as the truth. To that extent, they are exactly the same as us and they are JUST AS SINCERE as we are. The way to reach them is not by calling them Neo-Stalinist queer-promoting loons who're too stupid to accept Ray Comfort's banana argument; that just provokes them into a violent defence that is winning the argument in my country and, "Question Evolution!" campaign and all, is at least holding its own in yours. We need to engage them on the level of real scientific arguments that they can't answer, of which we have a good supply. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:36, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::No, it's not symmetric. Some atheists are opposed to free speech by Christians, and even claim offense at Christian speech as a way to censor it. The converse is virtually never true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:40, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Isn't it? I hate to hear blasphemy, but how can we prevent it without censoring the free speech of atheists? There's a Commandment against blasphemy, but can we realistically demand that they follow that Commandment? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:07, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vanadium and tunicates ==

While the blood of tunicates MAY contain high levels of vanadium (the only research indicating this dates back to 1911 and nobody has been able to replicate the results since) it does not replace iron as an oxygen carrier; haemovanadin does not appear to carry any oxygen at all, and it is likely (though not confirmed) that tunicate blood also contains haemoglobin and haemocyanin. Therefore this example is at best unsubstantiated and at worst wrong. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:50, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

:Waste of time, Sam. You SHOULD be writing hard-hitting articles on atheism and machismo, illustrated with pictures of rabbits. You're good at science: you should get out of here and start editing at http://astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page. Email me at john_mairs@hotmail.com. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 16:52, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== HIV and Evolution ==

The HIV example is terrible evidence against evolution, as HIV is a relatively new disease in humans and the genetic mutation that provides immunity is rare. Additionally, HIV affects a relatively small proportion of the population. There is no way for universal immunity to HIV to develop in a few generations. This counterexample is extremely weak, and undermines the integrity of the article.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 01:52, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

==Rate of extinction==
"The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." 
This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human. 
Evolutionists say that there was period of history when extinction rate was far higher than speciation (generation of species) rate and other period when it was the opposite. We are just currently in one of those times when extinction rate is higher (mostly because of human activity). 
I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::You'd expect more strains to go extinct in a biblical flood than on an average year I'd imagine. Why wouldn't you expect highly localized species to go extinct when weather patterns shift or similar events happen? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 02:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Why wouldn't it ? Your question is quite easy to answer if you consider that climate can change over time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::It seems that to you, Mr Schlafly, the rates of processes are either fixed for all eternity (e.g. extinction) or are variable [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Carbon_dating#Changing_decay_rates (e.g. rate of C-14 decay)] depending upon which best supports your pre-formed conclusion. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that extinction rates vary over time (the asteroid and the dinosaurs being perhaps the most blindingly obvious example of a huge spike in the rate of extinction). [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 17:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::There is evidence of the meteor impact too, in the form of a rock layer with an relatively massive amount of iridium, the enormous crater in Mexico, and the fact that there isn't a single true dinosaur fossil found above this rock layer. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Birds are the only exception, although whether they are true dinosaurs is a hotly debated topic of taxonomy.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Well we're moving off topic slightly, but the point about birds is that if they did evolve from dinosaurs, as is the favoured theory among scientists, then by the time of the asteroid impact they had evolved physiological or behavioural features that enabled most of them to survive. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trilobites and Evolution ==

Saying that the lack of arthropods prior to trilobites disproves evolution forces one to make the assumption that all arthropods had chitinous exoskeletons. It is quite possible that early arthropods lacked an exoskeleton, explaining their absence in the fossil record. The development of this exoskeleton led to the explosive success of the trilobite and made it much easier for them to be fossilized compared to earlier, soft bodied arthropods, who were much less abundant. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:26, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:Isn't the DEFINITION of an arthropod an invertebrate with a segmented body, jointed legs and an exoskeleton? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:44, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::Nope, it is just the definition of modern arthropods. It is entirely possible that the ancestor of the trilobite had a much softer exoskeleton, limiting its ecological success. Whether or not it was an arthropod is literally a matter of semantics, not a matter of biology.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==

The article currently states, without a reference, that there is greater genetic similarity between gorillas and humans than between chimpanzees and humans. This is false. [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/resources/student_papers/silver.pdf (see page 6)] [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 15:58, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:You're right; there is NOT greater similarity between humans and gorillas than humans and chimps, and the article isn't intended to say that; the point is that there are SOME SEQUENCES that are more similar, which contradicts the evolutionary hypothesis that we have a mmore recent LCA with chimps than with gorillas. The confusion is my fault and I'll fix it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:05, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::It still doesn't contradict evolution at all. Say we start with 4 genes, A, B, C, D. The gorilla branches off earliest and takes with it A, B but has evolved two new ones, W, X. The chimpanzee branches off from the original line later on, but takes with it A, C, D and evolves Y. Humans on the other hand branch off last taking B, C, D and evolving a new one, Z. Now, humans share only one gene with gorillas but two with chimpanzees. However, it so happens that the one they share with gorillas is not also shared with chimpanzees.

::Obviously this is a ridiculously simplistic analogy, but it demonstrates that it is perfectly possible for one species to be more closely related to humans, with a more distantly related species still sharing DNA sequences only with humans. Even if you don't accept the concept of evolution, there is no contradiction with its internal logic. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:53, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Declining human fertility ==

While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context "fertility" is a measure of birthrate, and the decline is due to social factors and increased life expectancy. There is an issue of a decline in male sperm count, but this appears to be linked to water pollution and is recent; there was no evidence of a decline before 1960. The most likely culprit is residual DDT breakdown products, which have also been linked to feminisation in freshwater fish. This is not evidence for a young Earth. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:24, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:The key point here is that to be valid the counterexample presumes that the rate of the process has been consistent throughout history. However, as with this case, for all counterexamples resting upon this assumption there is no reason to believe that this is true; indeed for some it is perfectly obvious that it is not so. As such, I propose that all counterexamples that are dependent on this assumption be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:32, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and "old Earth" geology, and CP shouldn't (and doesn't need to) use it. If you're interested I have a couple of articles (peer-reviewed, not from AiG or any Hovindite loons) questioning this assumption; email me if you want them. My address is on my user page. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:35, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::When using the term uniformitarianism it is extremely important to specify the definition being used. The idea of uniform rates of processes is one such specific definition, but one that has long since been rejected by mainstream science, including evolutionists and geologists. Take the theory of punctuated equilibrium for example, which basically argues that evolution occurred via long periods of very gradual change, punctuated by shorter periods of relatively rapid change. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:48, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

There is a great deal of debate over whether certain features/organs are vestigial in certain species or whether they still retain a useful function. However, while it may be true that in the past scientists have believed certain features to be vestigial, only for it later to be discovered to have a function still, this does not provide a counterexample to evolution. Evolution merely argues that vestigial features are theoretically possible, not that they ''must'' exist for evolution to be true. To point out that incorrect predictions have been made is merely to point out that science progresses by making predictions which are then tested. This is therefore not a counterexample and I therefore believe I was justified in deleting it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:56, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Ear muscles in humans have many important functions, such as providing the ability to close the ears when presented with an argument you don't like. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:01, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::This is a very controversial article and the feeling in the CP community is that editors shouldn't delete information from it without adding other information to compensate. If you would just email me I can explain this to you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:59, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If a statement is untrue it should be removed irrespective of how many counterexamples are wanted. Perhaps we could mark any refuted counterexamples with the appropriate explanation? [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:02, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you could. Perhaps somebody would even listen. Are you going to listen to me or not? If you want to keep editing at CP it would be in your interests to do so. I can give you some advice on what provokes the sysops to use their favourite surgical implement, the banhammer. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:05, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Fossils ==

In response to the undoing of FCapra's edit, I believe FCapra is right. The article is about 'counterexamples'. The example in question merely argues that there is a lack of evidence; a counterexample must be actual evidence that contradicts the proposition, not simply a lack of evidence for it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trichinella spiralis ==

According to Dickson Despommier who made Trichinella.org, the referenced website, the immune response is driven up in the animal after the animal is infected and that this is probably to reduce competition and increase the probability that the host will meet its end in a predation situation, thus enabling Trichinella spiralis to be transferred to a new host. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Deletions will be restored ==

The repeated deletions will be restored unless there are well-supported, fully explained, and justified reasons for the deletions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:The "teeth in mouth" example: Many if not most adults need to have their wisdom teeth removed. The balding example: Baldness is not necessarily undesirable. Some women--like my wife, find it attractive. Moreover, it often manifests long after a man has reproduced, passed on the trait, and is out of the mating pool. The schizophrenia example: Schizophrenics can reproduce before they demonstrate any symptoms and become undesirable mates, thus allowing the condition to perpetuate even if it is undesirable. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:42, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::To shed further light on the removal of the balding example; studies have shown that bald men are perceived as being older and thus more senior, giving them an advantage within social groups. Therefore it is deemed to be somewhat advantageous. The fact that historically humans have had much shorter life-spans also means that most men died before experiencing it, meaning that it never even became a significant factor in terms of evolution, either as an advantage or disadvantage. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Lifespan for healthy people has not changed much, and it's absurd to claim that balding is desirable. An implausible argument such as claiming that balding is a desirable trait does not warrant deletion of a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the [http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+graph#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en last 50 years alone!] Go back further and the increase is even more remarkable. (Indeed, you should welcome this point, for if we apply your argument about the rate of extinction and assume that this rate of increase is constant, then we soon find that human life expectancy was 0 sometime in the 16th century. A possible addition for 'counterexamples to and old earth' perhaps?)

::::You are mistaking 'aesthetically desirable' (which is subjective, and obviously different people with have different views), with desirable in terms of evolution. Studies have shown that whether or not people 'like' the appearance of bald men, they nonetheless perceive them to be older and thus more senior than men of the same age with a full head of hair[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595001301]. It has been shown that MPB is equated with seniority within social hierarchies of other primates. Whether you deem it implausible or not, the evidence is there. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 00:13, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::As an older woman, I don't find bald men any less attractive then men with a full head of hair. My friends would agree with me. I believe we know more about male attractiveness than you, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:20, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Evolution of whales ==

The theoretical phylogeny of whales is well documented, [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007062], so the "counterexample" about whales should be removed.

: That article hardly justifies deleting the counterexample. The counterexample is being restored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::If you could explain to me what parts of the counterexample it fails to address, I'd be more than happy to find an alternate article. I dont see what points about whale evolution are not addressed within the article, however. Perhaps you missed one of the charts? [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Based on its abstract, I don't think the article even comes close to addressing the many unique attributes of a whale that defy any evolutionary explanation. If you'd like to explain here what you find so persuasive about the article, then feel free to do so. But the counterexample is not going to be deleted unless and until a much more persuasive showing of an evolutionary path is made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Based on the title, "Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and '''Character Evolution'''", the article does indeed address many of the "unique attributes" of Ceteca. The section titled "Selected Character Optimizations for Cetancodonta", in particular, explains how whales are expected to have evolved within a clade filled with terrestrial herbavores. Whether you accept the research or not, scientists have mapped out and have an explanation for the evolution of whales, and everything they have concluded fits within the theory of evolution.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:28, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

== Wait...what? ==

I have honestly never heard the following arguments used as counter-examples for evolution and I'm not sure I follow:

'''Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.'''

'''Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying atheistic explanations'''

How do these prove evolution doesn't exist? [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 18:51, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

:The [[theory of evolution]] is based exclusively on materialism. Those observations confound the theory, because there is no materialistic explanation. If materialism does not drive animal behavior, then evolution falls apart.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reasons why the Artistic Beauty Argument Fails as a Counterexample ==

Artistic Beauty is subjective, and any objective means of describing beauty are usually based on patterns such as symmetry or the Fibonacci sequence, which have many evolutionary advantages. Within the framework established by science, beauty has no inherent meaning, it is up to individual organisms to interpret a meaning from the stimuli they are presented with. In addition, organisms that seem impractically beautiful, such as the peacock, evolved that way to attract mates, as the increased mating attractiveness was more useful than any disadvantages brought about by the peacocks impressive plumage. Trees seem beautiful because they often branch in the Fibonacci sequence, as it results in the most efficient absorption of light. The bright colors are a result of secondary pigments which allowed for a wider spectrum of light to be absorbed. In nature, the most beautiful trees are the most successful, so they have an evolutionary advantage over uglier trees with poor light absorption and awful branch layout. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:22, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Kidney donor ==

I'm not arguing whether this should be in the article, but someone needs to re-read one of the quotes included in this section "...mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a '''''deceased''''' donor in the United States is five years" - as far as I know, most deceased donors don't need ''either'' kidney. Most often, the patient wasn't healthy enough at the time of death to use their organs, or the family refused to allow the procedure.

Also, getting listed for kidney transplantation is rather complex - a lot of dialysis patients don't qualify for a transplant because of health or financial reasons. They can miss out on an available kidney because they have a cold, and die before another one is available. They could have had health insurance when placed on the transplant list, but not have it when the kidney becomes available and can't afford the medication needed afterward, thus losing the kidney.

Most people don't donate kidneys because they're scared - of the surgery, of the cost, or of the chance they will suffer kidney failure themselves. The US population is not well-educated about the subject. For instance, most people don't know that if a donor does suffer from kidney failure later on (and I have actually met several), they are automatically placed at the top of the transplant list. One man I met waited a whole 2 days for his kidney. Another one waited a week.

A patient who isn't on dialysis yet tends to be transplanted ahead of a person who has already reached ESKD and is on dialysis because it is healthier for the patient to receive a transplant before undergoing dialysis. Thus, the sicker patients often have to wait longer, and most of them have additional conditions that worsen their situation. Dialysis is extremely hard on the heart, and the average life expectancy of a 40-45 year old patient is around 6 years.

I really think this section needs rewording, because the situation is a lot more complex than merely misinformation about evolution. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:29, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, Sharon, and I did remove the quote (although the quote was accurate, but tended to be confusing). Still, the bottom line for how the "US population is not well-educated about the subject" is simply this: Americans are taught to believe in evolution, and makes them think both kidneys are needed. It's a false belief resulting from a false teaching, and the consequences are tragic for those who need kidney donors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:23, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

::The evolutionary explanation of having multiple kidneys was that the resource cost of possessing two fully developed, equally functional kidneys was slightly less than the risks of only having one kidney in case of injury or disease. Additionally, all vertebrates posses two kidneys, as all vertebrates posses bilateral symmetry, an ancient animal characteristic that is only broken in extremely rare instances[http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/palmer/asym/axes/symmetry.htm], such as in flatfish (which are symmetrical as larva). Indeed, it is almost impossible to violate bilateral symmetry, which is why humans still posses two kidneys. Our ancient animals ancestors needed two kidneys, but now that we don't need both our kidneys anymore, it will take a lot more than a few million years of evolution to get rid of them.

::Also, if evolutionary belief is having an impact on kidney donor-ship, the numbers certainly don't show it. In the past 20 years, kidney donations have almost tripled and the ratio of living donations to deceased donations has rapidly diminished [http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/latestData/rptData.asp]. Evolutionary teachings certainly haven't become less common in America, so unless there is concrete evidence that an education in comprehensive, evolutionary biology actually has a negative impact on donations, your statement on donor-ship can't really be justified. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 14:07, 16 November 2011 (EST)

== Weak Arguments/Logical Fallacies in this Article ==

I am a student studying Neuroscience. In the process, I have been through several courses in the undergrad and graduate level studying biology and evolution, and I can tell you that many, if not all, of the arguments on this page are quite fallacious in nature and would not hold up to any sort of scientific scrutiny.

Let's get one thing straight here - I personally do not believe that the Theory of Evolution can explain everything about the development of life, but proving it completely incorrect will be quite a hassle if it is even possible.

I see scientists often characterized on here as being "dogmatic" and "driven by faith" to be atheists and defend evolution over the alternative of creation. I can't imagine how you can be any further from the truth, which is why I want to help you get your own story straight. If you can prove the Theory of Evolution incorrect, you will not be hated; in fact, you will start quite the revolution in thought.

===With just a quick glance, here is my opinion on the arguments on this page===

"Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[1]), then the odds that these 27 counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is only 25%." - Extreme misuse of probability and statistics; very laughable.

"1. The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." - '''There have been many points throughout the history of the world where extinction spikes have been seen, and it is often unknown why they are caused. Just as there are extinction spikes, there were also spikes in population growth and speciation. Google "Cambrain Explosion" for an example.'''

"2. Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation." - '''This is very well addressed by another user on this talk page. In addition to that explanation, remember that what we perceive as "good" was evolved in response to the environment. If a fruit is bright and colorful, chances are that it is not poisonous. Likewise, If a food is sugary or fatty, it will taste appealing to us; as these were the most energy-rich foods and the ones that were most beneficial for us to eat when we came by them back when we were hunter-gatherers. Just to give a couple examples.'''

"3. Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[2] Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.[3]" - '''First of all, the theory of evolution cannot explain something that it is not established to explain. This is like saying that since one is weightless out in space, that the Law of Gravity cannot be true. Secondly, what this point fails to take into account is that: (1) Apes have one more pair of chromosomes than humans do, and therefore more genetic room for genetic diversity. The reason: The 2nd chromosome of our species is actually two chromosomes fused together, which existed separately in our ancestors. (2) Humans did originate from a small population in Africa, but this is neither a subject of debate nor a pressing question to anthropologists, as the reasons for our smaller genetic variance than apes are well-known.
'''

"4. The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation[5]" - '''Once again, this is not a phenomena that the Theory of Evolution was established to explain and the fact that it can not explain this on its own does not make this a counterexample. There are many hypotheses about migratory patterns as well as ongoing studies in this area.'''

"5. Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome.[...]having a functional protein are too great." -'''This argument, once again, has nothing to do with the process of evolution, but is instead making the claim that life is too improbable to have occurred without a creator. While this argument is a great philosophical argument for believing in God, it is not scientific. From a scientific perspective, life has occurred, despite how improbable, and it is the mission of scientists to discover the natural processes through which complex life came about. Maybe these processes were put in place and performed by God. Maybe they were not. This is not a question that science seeks to answer, however.'''

== Clearly Invalid Counterexamples ==

''If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.''
No, this is a teleological argument that assumes that humans are evolving towards some higher goal or purpose, which evolution never concludes. Teleology is rejected by most Biologists and Anthropologists, because it does not reflect evolution. Murdering psychopaths are just as capable of reproducing as other human, and liars can be even better at reproducing than others. Please explain how evolution could possibly select against personality types which are still perfectly capable of reproduction and don't have a solid, well defined genetic link.

''There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.''
In the past, humans had no idea evolution and speciation was possible, so we never would have tracked animals over thousands upon thousands of year, especially because civilizations tend to not last very long. Evolution takes a long time, and is very gradual. Thus, because history can only record so much, tiny changes in population phenotype were largely ignored by ancient humans. This does not disprove evolution, since evolution could still have been happening. Nobody cared enough to observe it over thousands of years.

''Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human genome. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.''
The segment of DNA that normally allows mammals to produce vitamin C is completely vestigial in non-lemur primates. We just didn't need it due to the large amount of fruit in our diet. I believe this qualifies as "junk DNA".

"For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going."
They did. More specifically, they evolved with an entire population of females to mate with and other males to compete with. Evolution occurs at the level of the population, not the individual. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:52, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== wisdom teeth ==

Why do so many of us need to have them removed if we have the "perfect" number of teeth? [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:08, 27 November 2011 (EST)

:For aesthetic purposes, and perhaps many of the removals are unnecessary. The wisdom teeth are not needed to consume modern food, but have the potential to increase pressure on the front teeth, which can make them look crooked on television.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 27 November 2011 (EST)
::So God designed our mouths to be aesthetically displeasing then? Do you have any evidence that unnecessary removals are being done, or is "perhaps" an indication that this is entirely conjecture on your part? Did God not foresee that our food habits would change and account for that in His design? Did He not account for television when He designed our mouths? [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:23, 27 November 2011 (EST)
:::I had to have mine removed because they were completely impacted - it did nothing to make my mouth crooked, they just didn't fit in my jaw. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:27, 27 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Atheism

2011-11-15T22:30:16Z

MaxFletcher: /* Definition */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Atheism/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== Definition ==

Just as an a quick aside should the main definition read "denial of the existence of a God and/or Gods?" [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:08, 14 November 2011 (EST)
:I would have made the change but it appears I can't. Anyone? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:00, 15 November 2011 (EST)
::Most of our audience is in the Anglosphere or in the Western World or at least been influenced by the Western World (such as India) plus the Encyclopedias of Philosophy cited are Western World philosophy reference works which are monotheistic in perspective so it is fine the way it is. In addition, you don't see Richard Dawkins and company often ranting about Shiva, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 15 November 2011 (EST)
:::What Dawkins says is irrelevant - is atheism not the denial of all and any god(s)? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:40, 15 November 2011 (EST)
::::Max, you didn't respond adequately to my response to you and instead chose to merely focus on the last sentence of my response. This often seems to be your modus operandi and as a result, I am not interested in discussing the matter further with you. I have better things to do with my time than attempt to discuss things with a brick wall. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:27, 15 November 2011 (EST)
:::::Unjustifiable rudeness. Figures. You never addressed my point that atheism denies all gods but whatever. Nor do you adequately address anything anyone ever point out to you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:30, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Atheism

2011-11-15T21:40:11Z

MaxFletcher: /* Definition */

Talk:Atheism

2011-11-15T21:40:00Z

MaxFletcher: /* Definition */

Talk:Atheism

2011-11-15T21:00:10Z

MaxFletcher: /* Definition */

Talk:Atheism

2011-11-14T23:09:01Z

MaxFletcher: /* Definition */

Talk:Atheism

2011-11-14T23:08:44Z

MaxFletcher: /* Definition */ new section

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2011-11-08T21:49:37Z

MaxFletcher: /* Why is the birth certificate things still going? */

[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article. Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama, with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro. Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word "allegedly" should be removed.

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== "The first president who is biracial" ==

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]

:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.

::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganizing ==

I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more. I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better. I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think. I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary. This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it. That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit ==

Here is what the American Thinker reported: "The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim." That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html] Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/

Personally, I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist. I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself. I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim. There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==

I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:I agree with you, Denis. It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

==Faulty Logic==
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with "You're a Muslim." I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative. They aren't. Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', "I am rooted in the Christian tradition." Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

==Days in office==
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

==Apparent sourcing errors==

While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.

*The quote "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship" under the heading "Presidency" is unattributed.

*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]

*The statement "Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982" under the subheading "Birth Certificate Controversy" is unsourced and ambiguous.

*Much of the content under the subheading "Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats" is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as "subverting" Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as "lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence"). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.

*<s>The statement "President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement" under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods" is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]</s>

*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism" link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement "Barack Obama's "Disinformation Czar" (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information." The cite for the statement "Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan" links to a private video.

--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth: While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time. See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?

:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

== Typo ==
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read "...said to have '''been''' born in..." I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)

== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==

Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? – [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)

==Fact vs Opinion==
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start. I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain. So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish. The road to becoming a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction. That being said, I will try to keep this short.

FACT: Opinions are not fact. Even expert opinions are not fact. They're just plain old opinions. Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can. Your "help" is often unhelpful. Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions. If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here. Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...

There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which: President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28]. The moratorium lapsed in 2008. It says it right in the article, paragraph 4. This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post. If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)

== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==

I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was. The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders. This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less. We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated. I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy. In that case, the article would read something like, "then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc..." accompanied by supporting references. I am afraid, however, that a "nuh-uh," or, "because I said so," is simply Not Good Enough. We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)

:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links. If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that. Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office. But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)

::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read. I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist. The text is already up there. Pretty vanilla. Mentions him by name, but also says, "hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!" But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus. The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse. The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress. In November, we voted out the 111th. We are now in the 112th Congress.

::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill). If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)

== Birth Controversy ==
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born? As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a "natural born" US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh. If the issue is "without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother" then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth. If we interpret "natural born citizen" as "born within the US", then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his "natural born" citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered "natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of "natural born" was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his "natural born" status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's "natural born" status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

== Birth Certificate Removal? ==

Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Shortening the article length ==

I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.'''
Thoughts?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

== First Socialist??? ==

Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obama the Socialist ==
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Update of the article ==

See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Bin Laden ==

Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

:::''"giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia."'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists.

:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq & Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly.

:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991.

:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''" I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. "'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

==From the update - discussion==
===Structuring===
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use "See also:" pages rather than go into major details.
{| style="width:100%"
|valign="top"|
*Early life
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)
*U.S. Senate career
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''

*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)
**Primary race
**National election
|valign="top"|
*Presidency
**Domestic policy
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)
***Economic plan
****Stimulus plan
***Health care
***The Gulf oil spill
**Foreign policy
***Commander-in-Chief
****Iraq
****Afghanistan
****Libya/The Obama Doctine
****Don't Ask Don't Tell
|valign="top"|

*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)
*References
*See also
*External links
|}

Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:Leave bold for now & let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a "jobs recovery". I'd suggest this needs a better name. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was "Proposed Recovery" - or "Recovery Plan". The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps "Stimulus and budget". Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under "Wartime"; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the "Economic plan" section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for "Homosexual policy", and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , "Economic policy", "Foreign policy", etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Speculation ==

In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles ("''President'' Obama"), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of "if you can't cite it, don't say it."[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say "Mr." or "Ms."--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone

== Perhaps ==

I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==

I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words "Islam" or "Muslim". (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obama as President ==
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
:You may be misreading the story; the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined "natural born citizen" as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==

I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)

:Well as soon as it's verified than we can move past. Until then, we'll just pretend everything is a ok. For me, I'd still like to see every executive order, every law signed, every supreme court nominee from Obama overturned. It took three years the release of the long form certificate. I can wait another three years if need be for the proof.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:11, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work. Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::But it wasn't photo-shopped, that was the whole point the National Review was making: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding]. And honestly it makes sense, why on Earth would they go to the trouble of planting so much evidence that even the Mccain campaign declined to pursue it further, only to bungle the job on an elementary error in photoshop that any reasonable graphics designer would never make. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:03, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::It was Photoshopped, and downloading the original White House copy of it reveals all of the layers when it's run under Photoshop. Try reading all of these [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546] by different reporters rather than a single National Review piece that's harping the beliefs of the "Yes We Can" crowd. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::So wait, you're saying that because they agree with Obama we can dismiss them? Isn't that circular reasoning? The author of the national review article posted a guide of how the mistakes could have easily come up and has no reason to lie about it. And again, let's think about this logically, they have authentic birth announcements from the relevant papers, good enough to fool the Mccain campaign, why would they botch a photoshop job? [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:27, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::And one of those mistakes that appeared on the Obama "certificate" was a sequence number that interfered with the numbers issued to a pair of twins; one of those mistakes was the "signature" of an individual which happens to be close enough to the name of a very small Hawaiian guitar; one of those mistakes is a smiley face attached to another signature; the list goes on. And until we see the real, bona-fide birth certificate, this issue is not going to go away, and we will continue to publish the current evidence as the fraud that it is. So don't worry too much about it, okay? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Does that mean to say that it should be considered a fraud until such a time as every US citizen has held and viewed the physical document? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:49, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:World History Midterm Exam

2011-11-03T00:44:28Z

MaxFletcher: /* Suggested improvements on exam */

== Post answers here for grading (enrolled students have already taken this exam) ==
===My Answers===
#C
#B
#C
#D
#B
#B
#A
#D
#D
#C
#A
#D
#C
#A
#D
#B
#B
#C
#A
#A
#D
#C
#A
#B
#C
#A
#B
#D
#C
#C
#B
#C
#B
#C
#C
#A
E.C. 1 A

E.C. 2 D
--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 23:15, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

===HollyS===
1c. 2b. 3c. 4d. 5b. 6c. 7a. 8d. 9d. 10b.

11a. 12d. 13c. 14a. 15d. 16b. 17b. 18c. 19a. 20a.

21d. 22c. 23a. 24b. 25c. 26a. 27b. 28d. 29b. 30c.

31b. 32b. 33a. 34a. 35c. 36d.

Seleucus: b. Chivalry: d.

[[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:25, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

== Top Scores ==

With 46 not yet graded, the top scores so far are:

*34

== Suggested improvements on exam ==
Question seven doesn't make sense. The greatest sculptor in history was Gian Lorenzo Bernini. --[[User:Hetgar|Hetgar]] 20:33, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
:It is extremely subjective. I was always partial to Rodin as a sculptor. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:44, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

Rugby World Cup

2011-10-27T00:47:59Z

MaxFletcher:

The [[International Rugby Board|IRB]] '''Rugby World Cup''' is the most prestigious tournament in the sport of [[rugby (Sport)|rugby union]]. It is contested every four years by 20 national teams. It was first held in 1987 but has grown to be one of the world's largest sporting events.

The next Rugby World Cup will be held in England in 2015.

==List of Tournament Winners==

1987 [[New Zealand]]

1991 [[Australia]]

1995 [[South Africa]]

1999 [[Australia]]

2003 [[England]]

2007 [[South Africa]]

2011 [[New Zealand]]

[[Category:Rugby]]

Rugby World Cup

2011-10-27T00:47:38Z

MaxFletcher: /* List of Tournament Winners */

The [[International Rugby Board|IRB]] '''Rugby World Cup''' is the most prestigious tournament in the sport of [[rugby (Sport)|rugby union]]. It is contested every four years by 20 national teams. It was first held in 1987 but has grown to be one of the world's largest sporting events.

The next Rugby World Cup will be held in New Zealand in 2011.

==List of Tournament Winners==

1987 [[New Zealand]]

1991 [[Australia]]

1995 [[South Africa]]

1999 [[Australia]]

2003 [[England]]

2007 [[South Africa]]

2011 [[New Zealand]]

[[Category:Rugby]]

Talk:Essay: Beautiful songs written about atheism

2011-10-17T01:43:42Z

MaxFletcher:

I'm tempted to write an essay ''Beautiful crowns made for presidents'' - this would be similarly farcical. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:09, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:John Lennon's "Imagine" advocates atheism, and while it may be wrong in doing so, shockingly, it is quite a beautiful song. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 09:06, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Didn't John Lennon treat his girlfriends/wives and his son cruelly?[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/item_CiGDOKXUtPlMvbNoopX1lN;jsessionid=9158CE06FE04328DD206807FA1E577BB][http://www.ahlanlive.com/john-lennon-angry-young-man--19524.html] I believe John Lennon had an ugly heart and Imagine was an ugly song which conspicuously failed to mention that atheists have been the world's biggest mass murders in history. (see: [[Atheism and mass murder]]). Instead, Lennon just engaged in unrealistic atheist utopian thinking which atheists have shown they have a penchant in doing (communism, etc. etc.). Now here is a collection of [[Essay: Beautiful Christian songs|Beautiful Christian songs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:06, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::::I agree with Conservative here. Imagine was an atrocious song. Also, note some of the things Lennon said about Jesus.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:14, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::Also, please notice the title of the satire was "Beautiful <big>'''songs'''</big> written about atheism" as in more than one song. I do find it telling that no atheists could name 2 beautiful songs about atheism. [[Atheism is a religion|Atheism is an ugly religion]] with no beautiful songs and [[Essay: Great and inspiring art by atheists on atheism|no beautiful works of art.]] Plus, as [[Henny Youngman]] pointed out, atheism has no holidays. Atheism is a gloomy and [[Atheism|errant religion]] and its adherents have higher than average suicide rates (see: [[Atheism and suicide]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

: I don't know most of those songs, but I always thought Lennon's "God" was a totally nihilist song rather than anything about atheism. It includes the line "I don't believe in Beatles", for instance. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 15:59, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::::I think you are mistaken about Johny Cash being an atheist. Second, it seems all of the songs merely whine about religion and none of them talk about the alleged beauty of atheism. Is that because atheism has no beauty? Is atheism a ugly duckling religion? Whining is not beautiful. A list of Christianity's most beautiful songs would not include a list of songs knocking Islam, atheism or Hinduism. Atheist Dan Barker belongs to some high IQ societies, including the Prometheus Society, which has an entrance requirement at the 99.997th percentile. From what I understand he wrote some Christian songs which were pretty good when he was a Christian. Yet, Dan Barker, the atheist boy genius, was unable to write a single atheist song which was good. All of Dan Barker's atheism songs were lousy songs which is very telling. The atheist community has a history of being: the greatest mass murders in history, a community with a higher suicide rate plus under its schema the universe burns out due to the second law of thermodynamics and ends in futility. In short, atheist song writers don't have anything to work with if they tried to write a song about the alleged beauty of atheism. Also, ''Wired Magazine'' said that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged male nerds. If you are looking for the next beautiful song amongst a group of song writers, a group of quarrelsome, socially challenged male nerds is probably not the best pool of song writers. By the way, anyone who would take the trouble to join a high IQ society and then brag about it is a nerd so it is not surprising that Dan Baker's atheist songs were all lousy songs. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::An addendum, Mahalia Jackson's songs are very soulful and sincere songs are her vocal range which God blessed her with was remarkable as can be seen [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eiI52WluF0 HERE]. Let's face it, Dan Barker, the atheist genius, can't compete against Mahalia Jackson when it comes to beautiful songs. The race isn't even close.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:11, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Your approach shows that you have a very strong connection to relativism conservative. --[[User:MeredithBr|MeredithBr]] 00:57, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Meredith, I have noticed that atheists have a penchant for making claims without supporting them and your post to me is a continuation of this trend. All you have to do is provide me two beautiful songs which talk about the supposed beauty of atheism. Do you know of any upbeat and beautiful atheist songs which talk about all the suns burning out and the universe being lifeless due to the second law of thermodynamics? You might as well face it, there aren't any beautiful atheist songs. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Atheism is too filled with deceit, mass murder and quarrelsome nerdiness for their ever to be a beautiful song about atheism (see: [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and women|Atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged males]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:23, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::By the way, I went to YouTube and looked up the song "Atheist peace" and there was nothing peaceful sounding or beautiful in that song. Plus, I checked out the AniDefranco song "What's if nobody's watching?" and it stunk. I then listed to the beginning of her song 32 flavors and it was much better. It seems as if atheists can't make a beautiful song about the ugly ideology of atheism which is not surprising. By the way, DiFranco couldn't have found atheism to be that beautiful because now she is an ex-atheist.[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/a/ani+difranco/biography.html] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:40, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Also, Gershin's song "It ain't necessarily so" was not beautiful. For example, when Cab Calloway sang the song "It ain't necessarily song" it wasn't half as good as his song "Minnie the Moocher". Let's face it. It is impossible to write a beautiful song about atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:51, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc This song is especially beautiful]. I am a Christian and find this extremely poetic. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:21, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::I wonder how much [[Carl Sagan|reefer Carl Sagan smoked]] before coming up with that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:::None because a) he didn't come up with this song and b) he is dead. nonetheless this is clearly an atheist centered song about the universe and its wonder. Which I believe fits your definition. Whether or no you ''personally'' like the song is irreverent. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:09, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
The Barna Group found concerning [[atheism and morality]] that those who hold to the worldviews of '''atheism or agnosticism''' in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: '''illegal drug use'''; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.[http://www.conservapedia.com/atheism] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:19, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::That's great but Sagan didn't write this - he is dead. And the point is this song, about the wonders of the universe is a beautiful song, this has nothing to do with the Barna Group. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:21, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::As far as the United States, it really doesn't matter what you believe concerning this matter since very few atheists will hear this song in the future given that the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will CUT atheism [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I by at least 50%] so atheism will go from being a squeak in society to merely being a half a squeak in society (and no doubt it will affect atheism in other countries as well). In addition, every day there are [[Global Christianity|300 less atheists in the world]] to hear a poorly done song about atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:38, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::At least you agree that this is considered an atheists song and does have a beauty. As to the atheist population - not an issue for me so don't care. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:43, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Beautiful songs written about atheism

2011-10-17T01:21:19Z

MaxFletcher:

Talk:Essay: Beautiful songs written about atheism

2011-10-17T01:09:32Z

MaxFletcher: he's dead

Talk:Essay: Beautiful songs written about atheism

2011-10-16T20:21:37Z

MaxFletcher: atheist song

Valve Corporation

2011-10-06T21:59:38Z

MaxFletcher: Portal is really not very violent at all

The '''Valve Corporation''' is an [[United States of America|American]] video game developer which is based in Bellevue, [[Washington]]. They were founded in 1996, and were made famous in 1998, by their first product [[Half-Life]]. They primarily produce [[violence|violent]] first-person shooter games, such as [[Half-Life 2]], and the extremely popular [[Counter-Strike]].

They are also responsible for the content-delivery system [[Steam (software)|Steam]].

[[Category:Video Games]]

User talk:TerryH

2011-10-05T23:22:58Z

MaxFletcher: /* Request for Admin assistance */ new section

[[File:Usa new year 2010.jpg|240px]]
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 00:22, 31 December 2009 (EST)
----

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

In response to Terry's statements concerning Jesus and how he might live today I feel it is quite simple. The best teachers lead through example and Jesus was sent here to, 'teach', to show us the way to God, so what better way to get there? The most practical of lessons are learned an enacted through specific actions, therefore to follow Christian doctrine and to live the life of a true Christian is to walk, talk, and act as Jesus did. So if we are to attempt to live as Jesus did we are by definition living the life of an extreme liberal. So if you want to get closer to God and be promised eternal salvation you should watch your step and begin as they say to, 'Walk the Walk and Talk the Talk'. copyright 2010, ©baltimoremd

As wordnetweb.princeton.edu/ defines 'liberal',

-broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
-having political or social views favoring reform and progress
-tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
-a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
-big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
-a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
-free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

== 66.212.16.194 ==

I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Reply ==

Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==

I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:Explain what? Do you deny it?
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Schlafly ==
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)
==Help!==
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)

== CreationWiki ==

Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:: For questions such as this, a good site is http://www.tektonics.org. You can search for keywords (as you can on many sites), or you can look up particular verses. With a quick look I found [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/guess2much.html this] page that touches on your question. I also found another page that pointed to a different site with [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html this article], which I haven't read, but I think might be quite useful to you. With a better search, you might be able to find more. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:24, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Headline text ==
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hai ==

Terry,

Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!

In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.

Also, consider archiving those two pages.

You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.

By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.

Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.

Regards,
-Hojimachong

== CreationWiki ==

Re-install MediaWiki. I use PHP5 on my Mac with Apache2 to run the software for my personal use, and have never had a problem. I understand the base is heavily hacked, but that's life. Alternatively, you might want to consider replacing all of the <code>include</code> directives with <code>include_once</code> directives. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)
==[[Io]]==
Wow, Terry, amazing job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Comment ==

In my short time here I've noticed two blocks, one with an accompanying IP block. I understand that IP blocks are good site policy for persistent vandals, but absent a showing that the targeted vandal is in fact a persistent, repeat offender, is there any reason to block permanently, other than to suppress dissent? Isn't it conceivable that you just blocked a public computer, or a public WiFi net, meaning now legitimate users can't visit? Seems to me like a poor compromise between security and freedom.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 14:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Hmmm, I appreciate your reasons, although I continue to think they're overbroad. I guess we disagree, but you're free to run your own site (into the ground...?). Further, I did not appreciate the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhoenixWright&diff=397970&oldid=397934 threatening tone, here.] In fact, I think it's counterproductive. I was not aware that wikis were autocracies. My experience at (dare I say it? - Wikipedia) was different. I see you're different from them, though, in many significant ways, this not the least. Cheers nonetheless.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)

==The horror...==
Hey, are you online? Could you please block ZebraSofa? I think I'm the only one who noticed his recent vandalism rampage. He seems to have sort of cooled down, but he could just be regrouping on the savannah. Thanks.[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I second to that, look at Recent Page. Someone stop the idiot that living his own shell

Edit- By the way, good job for defense, Jellyfish.
--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 12:33, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I got him. Thanks again Jellyfish. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Oops ==

(blush) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

300.2 million > 3.2 million [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=436643&oldid=436641] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== bamboozled ==

Why don't you think Fox News is a major media organization? --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 17:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:The edit isn't about size - it is about liberal bias. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== quick note ==

I replied to your planet suggestion and would be most happy to review the material and provide any input that I think I would be beneficial. I also sent you an important email. I am hoping to get things rolling as soon as possible and would appreciate your input in regards to my proposal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Regarding removal of my articles==

Is there any person I can contact regarding removing my articles? I see you reverted my deletion notices. Regards. [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 10:22, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

#No need to spam the wiki like this. You are heard.
#They are not "your" articles; you donated them without any strings attached.
#I deleted a couple already. Your article on [[Machiavellianism]] was worthless drivel. I can't believe a professor would use such material as course notes.
#If (by some awkward chance) you are really a professor, email me your credentials and we can talk by phone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:They weren't course notes; they were introductory articles. Quite a difference. I have nothing to prove to you, I don't care if you think I am a professor or not (I amn't by they way, I was a lecturer who taught in England and Ireland for many years, and never attained the title of 'professor') and am not going to Email you and am most certainly not going to let a random person on the internet ring me. What aspect of the Machiavelli article didn't you like? Was it above you? [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 11:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Redheads ==

Why does it need to be deleted? Sure, the first article I posted was intended to be sarcastic (not against Conservapedia, but against the cruel views with which Redheads are looked upon in England (a trend that stems from bigotry against the Scots, Irish, and Scandinavians).

This has manifested itself in the following forms:

-The Chapman family in Newcastle was forced to move MULTIPLE TIMES due to taunts directed to both parents and children

-We have been beaten up, and one man was stabbed in an alley

-Skinheads are organizing against us

-A waitress was harassed on multiple occasions

-Some of us (though not me, personally) are brought to indignation upon hearing the word "ginger", which isn't much when compared to things like "Firecrotch"

-Countless men, women, and children have been taunted, often resulting in suicide attempts

-Over here in Texas, I, along with a few people I know, have also been the target of obsceneties

-This issue has gained the attention of the press from Austin to Aberdeen, along with being the focal topic of an episode of Southpark, along with countless British media and recent literature.

(pardon my bad spelling; I'm only 16)

My second post sought to explain this. It did not have any liberal bias- only pro-ginger bias (my own). It does not concern conservatism or liberalism*. Besides, I thought this is the place to be biased... isn't it?

<nowiki>*</nowiki>Liberalism traditionally refers to free-market capitalism and relaxed social restrictions similar to Libertarianism. Only in recent years has it been misconstrued to refer to left-wing politics.

{{unsigned|GLA}}

==== Vaccines ====
Why did you revert my edits? The article that's cited as a source explicitly states that it has not been conclusively proven that Gardasil caused or was even implicated in those deaths. -- Aaronp

==Principal's Resignation?==

Terry,

Thought you might be interested in this story.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/story/458733.html

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:49, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Aggrieved's Talk Page Debate==

Terry, you came to my Talk page and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aggrieved&diff=prev&oldid=474283 demanded] that I "had better: 1) Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them; 2) Retract your last comment and apologize to me; and 3) Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration."

My response:

1) - Multiple citations provided. It is duly noted you never provided a single citation to back up your own false claim; 2) - Not a chance; 3) - No problem. This dialog will be in the record and your willingness to disregard fact, remain uninformed about current affairs, and aggressively police your own mistruths will be duly noted. Martyrdom in the name of truth can be my legacy.

In response to your failure to prove your case, and my success in proving mine, I now demand you:
1. Withdraw your claim on Main:Talk Page that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", publicly.
2. Apologize to me, publicly, for your aggressive tone and ill-informed opinion.

Thank you. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 21:04, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

==Hi==
Just pointing out, you accidentally blocked Leda for a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ALeda month] instead of a day. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:39, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:No accident, neighbor. She'd already been blocked a number of times before, so she rated what she got.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:58, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Delete and protect ==

I believe the new policy/custom is to use actual salting instead of using some "deletedpage" placeholder. You should be able to protect non-existent pages (or specify protection during deletion, I don't know for sure). See also [[Special:Protectedtitles]] for a list of what has been salted already. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 15:12, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

PS: Thanks a lot for the unblock. I'm still struggling with the mail confirmation, so I had to rely on somebody seeing my block. :) --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 17:13, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==My talk page==

Thanks for sweeping up around my castle when the moat overflowed. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Looks like someone had a friend show up ==

*shrug* Thanks. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Lsit ==

Thanks for the correction. [[User:Memory|Memory]] 15:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives==
Terry, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under your name so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== News suggestions ==

Terry, since you post to the "In the news" section of the Main page, I'm requesting your help with the News suggestions. So far, 54 of these suggestions have already been posted to the Main page and moved to the suggestion archives. With your help, we can continue to receive and post positive suggestions from our editors.

Please review the suggestions. If you like one (or more of them), please post the article(s) on [[Template:Mainpageright]] and add a note that you posted their suggestion. If you don't like a suggestion, add a comment and the suggestion will be moved to the suggestions talk page. I will take care of the rest (archiving, updating counts, etc). Thanks for your assistance. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== rhea article ==

Hi, great article. Now the bad news :) I came across this as a Random page search and I noticed the first bit with the picture is spread beyond the normal article edge on the left. It would be a bit neater if it could be sized a fraction narrower. I have no idea on how that would be done. If you disagree thats fine ;-) [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

: The problem was with the template that puts a box of information on the right. Somebody duplicated the size, and that duplicate size was uninterpretable and thus the image came through at its original size, which was ''not'' what I intended. You'll notice that the images are back to the proper size now.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:19, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:: yes thats even better [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:37, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
::: That error was in there since July last year! Obviously the previous version of MediaWiki somehow coped with it, but the latest version is stricter. It would also explain why the info box in the Earth article was so big the other day. And there's another size duplication in the template, which I'll fix now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== A. Schlafly's talk page ==

Could you repair it, too? I couldn't do so. Thanks --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Parolees==

I noticed we had a [[:category:Parolees]] a few weeks ago when I was browsing the [[Conservapedia:Maintenance]] page. Since [[User:Saxplayer]] is now on parole, I thought I'd use that as a chance to revive the formal parole system. Please let me know if you object. If you don't, how long is Saxplayer's parole for? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Slightly amused but no offense meant... ==

I'm sorry for bugging you, if you don't write [[Project:Guard dog|Guard dog]], but this block reason just cracked me up:
::''Blocked for vandalism with assistance of Conservapedia:Guard dog''
Can you tell whoever writes it they probably ought to reword that summary? When I first saw it, before I clicked the link to the page about Guard dog, I thought you were saying that the vandal was using Guard dog to ''vandalize''.

Again, sorry for bugging ''you'', but I saw you using it, and I don't know who develops it.

Thanks, and have a good day!

[[User:Samd|Samd]] 10:37, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, I wrote that. Now that you point it out, I see your point. I wonder what would be best: A comma after "vandalism"?
: And just to be overly pedantic, why would you think that the vandal was using Guard Dog to ''vandali'''z'''e'' when it actually says "vandali'''s'''m"?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::Because I'm a stupid American? :P I don't know. I've always spelled it like that. Why do I spell my name s-a-m? (pedantics in calculus class - uuggghhhh...) A comma would probably be good. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 11:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::: I won't make any nasty cracks about "stupid American" containing a redundancy. I provided the default text, but TerryH will have to change it on his settings if he wishes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:34, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== Don't get it.... ==

''From now on, I'll have to trust you implicitly. DO NOT ABUSE MY TRUST.''

Thanks for your trust? Don't shout at me? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:34, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Please, believe me, a block-notice is enough to get my attention :-)
I was editing [[Philipp Lenard]], when this bizarre ''Hitlermania'' started. I got a little bit annoyed as I'd thought that the guard-dog would act a little bit earlier - and without biting me ;-)
But I fully understand that you had no time to check my contributions to see that I'm a legit editor --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==New wave==

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:BlockIP/NicStory this], although I am faintly disappointed that you beat me to it. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Navboxes ==

Terry, I think that the text in the navboxes would look better if it was centered. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:10, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Recent Vandalism==
I'm not sure how to undo a page back 2 edits, but in the most recent vandalism spree, ForReal edited [[Talk:Main Page]] twice and [[Talk:Barack Obama]] was edited by ForReal and then another user just after that. When you undid that last edit, it took it back to ForReal's 'contribution'. Could you take care of this, or I can do it if shown how. Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 19:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)

==[[The Simpsons]]==

Should we provide a conservative analysis of the characters on the Simpsons? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Thanks!==

Looks like BrandonF was going to be persistent with his idea of "humor." I was going to revert him again, but you beat me to it. Thanks! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:25, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==AddisonDM block==

TerryH, I was given just now a 5 year autoblock by the Guarddog attributed to you, for suspected vandalism. I was actually installing a new template approved by Mr. Schlafly called [[Template:Bible Versions]] on all the Bible pages. I was told this was a good thing to do. Please immediately unblock me, and for proof I am not a vandal, see the 10+ new pages I have added at [[User:AddisonDM]]. 29 December 2008

== Happy New Year, Terry! ==

'''Glory to God in highest heaven,'''
'''Who unto man His Son hath given;'''
'''While angels sing with tender mirth,'''
'''A glad new year to all the earth.''' 
'''~Martin Luther''' 
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:38, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Help ==

Hi, thanks for helping out with that other editor earlier. I was just wondering how/where I can suggest new articles for creation? Many Thanks. --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 22:49, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== [[Subacute myelo-optic neuropathy]] ==

Would you mind taking a look at this and see what the "big dispute" is? Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== please check your email ==

Please check your email [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:06, 17 February 2009 (EST)

==Vandals==
It seems that there have been a lot of vandals with "bob" in their name. Could you edit the software to autoblock anyone with "bob" in their name for at least the next month? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 13:47, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== help would be appreciated ==

Any help you could offer as far as this article [[Creation vs. evolution debate]] would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:56, 1 March 2009 (EST)

==Music article talk page==
Hi TerryH! I've left a long, substantial review of the popular vs. classical issue on the [[music]] talk page. I'd appreciate starting a constructive dialogue about this issue in order to strengthen this aspect of the article. Thanks! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:28, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Guard Dog ==

The bot is going berserk. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:59, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

==Help needed==
As the editor of many Bible persons, could you weigh in on a problem mentioned here: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RJJensen#Persons_in_the_Bible (the Hoshea to Joshua issue has been fixed) Thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 08:46, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

== Great start! ==

Your edits to [[Epistle of Jude (Translated)]] are a great start to this week!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Thanks Terry (sorry for the late reply),

I have an interest in ancient Greek, daily access to a large academic library and, like everyone else, the resources of the Internet. You could describe me as an enthusiastic amateur.
Luke has always been my favorite Gospel, containing the best versions of the Parables. I have no particular plans to translate Acts, though I would welcome the opportunity. It would probably be best to regard my edits as first drafts, and I have tried to update the language and convey the intent of the verses.

[[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 18:58, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== Great block and revert! ==

Great block and revert, Terry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:30, 15 November 2009 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

and Marry Christmas!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==Must be doing something right==

Do I have the honor of attracting the most user page vandalism? Anyway, thanks for watching out for me, Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:42, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Genesis ==

Congrats on finishing Genesis! It'll be good to add to the ongoing CBP compilation. If you have input or recommendations for the compilation's design and layout, please bring them forward! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:09, 4 January 2010 (EST)

== Ephesians ==

Well done powering through Ephesians! Here I'd planned to come home and translate a chapter, and you've finished the whole letter. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 19:07, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

== Romans 9-16 ==

Sorry for tripping over your work there, I figured I'd work a chapter ahead to avoid edit conflicts with the one you were working on. I'm out of time for today, so feel free to go ahead without me getting in the way, and have a great Easter. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 19:39, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

== Wow, inspiring achievement! ==

Wow, Terry, what an inspiring achievement! Now there are only 5 unfinished books. I'll hurry up with the Letter of James!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

:Scratch that - I see you're working on the Epistle of James. I'll work on the Epistle to the Hebrews now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:28, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

== a proposal ==

Terry,

Would you be interested in writing the following articles:

*[[Creation vs. evolution]]
*[[Evidence against evolution]]
*[[Conservapedia essay: What is evolution?]]

The reason I ask is that I think it would be a good idea for Conservapedia to launch a [[Conservapedia: Anti-Evolution Project]] down the pike. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:43, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

== Touching base ==

Hi Terry,

Rob encouraged me to stop by and try to mend fences, as it were. I'm sorry for the differences we've had in the past, probably not here, but now that I am back I wanted to get off on the right foot and I hope we don't bump heads... good luck and Godspeed with your works.

Peace, Huw. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:06, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

User talk:RSchlafly

2011-10-05T23:22:46Z

MaxFletcher: /* Request for Admin assistance */ new section

<big>'''ARCHIVES:'''</big> '''[[User talk:RSchlafly/Archive1|1]]'''

== Clean ==

Enjoy your nice, clean talk page! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:15, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== I would appreciate your support ==

Dear RSchlafly,

I am sending you a note about the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]] and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia.

The Conservapedia article on [[homosexuality]] is now ranked in the top 10 of http://www.google.com searches. I estimate that the Conservapedia article on homosexuality is giving 300-400 people new people a day to know about Conservapedia who wouldn't otherwise know about it. When the article is in the top 5 of the search engine rankings it will bring in SUBSTANTIALLY more as the top 5 entries get the lion's share of the internet traffic.

Now a main reason why the Conservapedia homosexuality article is ranked in the top 10 is that the search engines highly reward articles with footnotes that link to other interent websites. Accordingly, since our uncited template is successful in getting people to cite their material as Andy Schlafly stated, I made note of the uncited template in the following Conservapedia articles:

Conservapedia:Commandments: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments

Conservapedia Manual of Style: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style

Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help

Currently about 50% of Conservapedia articles are completely uncited and a high percentage of articles that are cited are poorly cited. If this persist, not many people are going to know about Conservapedia as our articles will be poorly ranked by the search engines. However, I strongly believe that the uncited template will make a substantial difference.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your efforts in supporting the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]].

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:40, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

'''*Conservative, around here, it is the practice of all Sysops, except you, to discuss changes before implementing them, and asking for support. The Commandments may only be changed upon direct approval from Andy. You did not receive this direct approval, no? Kindly try and act like a mannered person, post your proposals to the Sysops and Andy, then be prepared for discussion and support, not the other way around. I could support your idea, except for the encouragement of placing templates without limitiation. We have far too much clutter already, and your failing to limit template placement, by stating some guideline for what a minimum number of citations is, will lead to chaos and endless debate as to how many are too few and how many are "enough". Thanks. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 15:52, 29 July 2007 (EDT)'''

== 1992 Election ==

Nice revert. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 18:51, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Since in the ''United States'', Ferret, we do not elect our President's with a direct popular vote, and never have, references to who won a majority percentage of the vote are misnomers. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yep, realise that's not how it works. It's an interesting and quite deliberate part of the design on behalf of the founding fathers. It's not about winning a majority of the voters across the nation, it's about winning a majority of the voters in the right number of states, with smaller states deliberately getting more than their proportional weight of the electoral college. I think it's a beautiful system that works as well with 50 states in 2004 as it does with 13 (vote counting issues aside!). Whether a particular president won a plurality, or absolute majority, of the vote is of interest for that very reason - it illustrates the system working exactly the way it's designed to work. Bush got the votes he needed in the states he needed - Gore did not. Simple as that, isn't it? (OK, it wasn't THAT simple, but let's not go there!) [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 05:57, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for adding the percentage on that election. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:49, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

==Catch-22==

Which novel are you referring to 'published ten years earlier' on the Catch-22 page? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

: See [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19980428/ai_n10413175] or [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20561858.html]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:21, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Hi! :)

Thanks for adding a new article, in this case [[kluge]]. Please, though, categorize your articles when you create them; while there are those of us who will go through and clean-up the uncategorized articles, you know your subject better than we do.

For a list of categories, go here: [[Special:Categories]]. To add a category to your article, type two open brackets, then "category:" followed by the category you want. Just add two closed brackets and you're done! You can add as many categories as you feel are appropriate. Thanks! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 02:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

==Theory and Fact==
Please try and remain civil when it comes to altering other people's edits - there was no reason to refer to the information as "junk". If you thought it was verbose you could have just said so. Regardless, I am going to reinsert some information in a less confounding way. At the moment the flimsy terse mention of biological evolution in the article is insufficient for anyone to understand the what is considered fact and what is considered theory. It's a great example for the article. However, I don't want an edit war so my changes will only be minute at first. Regards. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:19, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

: I was civil. If I thought that verbosity were the problem, I would have said so. The reinserted text is wrong and confusing. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:54, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

: Absolutely not. There is nothing wrong with the information. If you have counter evidence regarding Modern synthesis or that evolutionists refer to the science as both a fact and theory, then that would be one thing. However, based on your actions, I can only presume that you simply don't want the information posted. Things aren't incorrect simply because you say so. If you require sources I'd be more than happy to supply them - but by dismissing the information, removing it without notification and referring to it as "junk" is slightly inflammatory. At least that's how I'm taking it. My edits are in good faith and meant to help the project of conservapedia. If you doubt this at all, just look at my edit history. Anyway, it would have been better had you and I discussed the changes first. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:04, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Your presumptions are incorrect. Evidence for and against the modern synthesis is irrelevant. The article is just about some simple definitions. I have posted on the Talk pages an example of how your own text contradicts your own sources. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

== [[Twin Primes]] question ==
Roger, do you think there are an [[infinite]] number of [[twin primes]]? Do you think it is provable (though obviously not proven yet)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:53, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

: I would guess yes, but until someone solves the problem, no one knows for sure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:53, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

*Roger....that is what they are still saying about being able to teach me Trig! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:16, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

== Shawshank Redemption ==
[http://www.shawshankredemption.net/books/the-shawshank-redemption-plot.html]"A new prisoner called Tommy comes to Shawshank prison. '''Tommy tells another prisoner, who tells Andy, that Tommy had had a cellmate at a different prison who bragged about killing a rich golfer and some hot-shot banker's wife, and the banker getting jailed for it. This is clearly the real killer of Andy's wife.''' Andy sees the possibility of a new trial since this evidence would prove his innocence. Warden Norton dismisses the story, telling Andy to ignore this made up story. When Andy argues with him warden Norton sends Andy to solitary confinement, to remind Andy of his place in the prison hierarchy." --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 05:22, 8 September 2007 (EDT)[

: That is just an argument for a court action. Nowhere does the movie say that Andy was innocent, or that he was wrongly convicted. If Andy is innocent, as you say, then for what is he being redeemed? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

::I will email Steven King and ask, Roger. I just remember it from the book and movie, is all....so it must have been important to the story, otherwise I would imagine King would have snipped it. Argument for a court action? Lawyers have enough business! The way he was given the news, not expecting it, nor thinking it was coming, seems to indicate he wasn't looking for a ploy. I will revert myself back in the movie list, if you haven't already, pending my hearing back from King. Fair enough? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:35, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Whether Andy was expecting the news, or looking for a ploy, is irrelevant. He is likely to jump on any opportunity to get out of prison. The beginning of the movie show overwhelming evidence against Andy in court. It avoids showing the murderer when the trigger is pulled. Apparently the movie wanted to create some ambiguity. My question for you: Under your interpretation, what is the "redemption" of the title? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:24, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Redemption comes in many packages, I have found. Perhaps the humanity, the ability of some to maintain and even nurture the type of complex "friendship" (humanity) that the characters actually developed, in spite of their circumstances, is the "redemption". Writers speak constantly in metaphors, and not all of them built on sound ground, but in some loose manner, the characters were role-reversed, eh? The prison guard in his own prison, without walls, and the inmate in an actual one, yet actually more free? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:16, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

==Vandal==

I found a vandal named spoonboy. It seems that he deliberately changed information on the Post-Diluvian Diasporas article in order to make a mockery out of Conservapedia. He also messed up the link on the page. Please examine his edits and take action if necessary. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 22:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

==Don Imus Edits==
When you remove the specific insults that Imus used, you remove the whole point of caring about things like racism and sexism. I suppose what you're suggesting is that those two things (racism and sexism) are acceptable? Perhaps we should just overlook them? If we are to learn anything from what Mr. Imus said and what happened to him as a result, we need to know exactly WHY he was fired. Now that he's been rehired by conservative bastion 770 WABC in New York, has the conservative agenda been amended to include "protect Imus?"

Again, when you remove what he said from the article, you remove any idea about how WRONG what he said was. This seems to me to be an attempt to soft-soap a racist, sexist comment. I wonder why you wish to do this. Perhaps you, yourself, agree with Mr. Imus' statements? Do YOU believe that the Rutgers University Ladies Basketball Team is a bunch of "nappy-headed hoes?" This seems a gross and base mischaracterization of a group of ladies I'm sure you are not personally acquainted with.

Since Conservapedia makes the claim that it is non-biased, and that it is supposedly the alternative to the liberal-biased WikiPedia (and the accuracy of that assessment is something I leave to another debate at another time), WHY, sir, have you seemingly attempted to slant things to FAVOR a radio personality who made RACIST and SEXIST remarks and who is employed by a major conservative media outlet?

I await your response, sir, with something approaching eagerness.
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 19:00, 27 January 2008 (EDT)

: I did not remove the quote. It was someone else. You are complaining to the wrong guy. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Since there was no contribution between mine and yours, sir, I feel that you are fibbing. Peruse the history of the Don Imus page and see. Perhaps someone else made the revision and used your name? Unlikely. My only conclusion is that you or someone using your name condones institutional racism and sexism in the mainstream media. If this is true of you, you ought to be ashamed. If it is someone else using your name, you ought to be outraged. Either way, at least ACT like you care.
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 15:30, 29 January 2008 (EDT)

: I checked the history. You inserted the quote here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Don_Imus&diff=378862&oldid=288654] and it was removed by [User:Iduan], not me. I merely shortened your mischaracterization of what Imus said. You wrote that Imus "classified a group of female athletes as women of decidedly ill repute". That was just not correct. Imus did not say that anyone had ill repute. Please do not make false accusations against either Don Imus or me. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 29 January 2008 (EST)

How did I make false accusations against Don Imus? He called those women "nappy-headed hoes." Where I come from, "nappy-headed" is meant as an insult against the typically tightly-curled African-American hair type. "Ho," in common use, is slang for a "whore" or "prostitute," which, when you clean it up for the good old "family-friendly" Conservapedia, means "woman of ill repute."
So, to insult typically African-American hair type, and to call these women "prostitutes," hmmm, I dunno, seems like RACISM and SEXISM to me. One doesn't have to be a trust fund baby to deny the truth, but it helps, I suppose. Good day, sir. [[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 16:30, 31 January 2008 (EDT)

: You are welcome to your opinions, but your edit was inaccurate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:51, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Thanks for the Unblock ==

I do enjoy especially the part of this project which concerns the history of sciences. It just a hobby of mine, and discussions like ours are a welcomed to delve into the literature. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:15, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:RS, check me if I'm wrong, but I'm finding BRichtigen a bit of a distraction. Is he really doing good work somewhere around here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:54, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:: I can't tell if ''you'' are finding him a distraction, but how is that ''his'' fault? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::chuckle, you make a goood point there --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:38, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: I had some disagreements with BRichtigen, but he is definitely doing good work. Please do not block him. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== question of lawyers responsibility as Officer of the court ==

Hi, is a lawyer who knows his client is guilty still permitted to provide a defense or is he meant as an officer of the court , to plead guilty and attempt to mitigate the sentancing ? I realize there may be a difference between what should happen and what does happen. I lived for a while in Australia and England so it may be an issue of US law vs English .. Thanks oh, this relates to the importance of good character in the appointment of white house counsel [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 21 November 2008 (EST)

: Under US law, the lawyer is required to argue the case however the client wants to plead it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:12, 23 November 2008 (EST)
:: ok , thanks [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:22, 24 November 2008 (EST)

== Merry Christmas ==

and I hope the New Year will give us ample opportunity to discuss interesting topics, like we have done this year!
Yours [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 18:20, 23 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy New Year, Roger! ==

{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''--Oprah Winfrey}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:33, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Continuum ==

Hi Roger. Foxtrot and I have been arguing over the Continuum article and we really need someone to step in and mediate. I have a problem with the entire second paragraph really: "The continuum is called so because it was the first (and most prominent) continuous set studied by mathematicians. No additional numbers may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense linear order without endpoints. Since the complex numbers add the imaginary number, i, to the real line, this is one reason they have no natural linear order. Any linear order of the complex numbers needs the Axiom of Choice to be constructed."

First of all the reference to a continuous set is unneccessary. I had never heard of such a thing. When I googled it I saw that it is an obscure notion that has no place in such a short introductory article to the topic. I see no reason to believe that the continuum was called so because it is a continuous set. My best guess is that the use of the word continuum predates the use of the term continuous set.

The second sentence about not being able to add more numbers to the reals is essentially meaningless. What do we mean by number? We are discussing the real line as an order theoretic/topological object. It is easy to extend the reals as such an object with out losing the dense linear order. This ties into the last statement. I outline in http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Continuum&curid=81756&diff=621255&oldid=621024 how to construct the lexicographic order on the complex plane. This refutes the last sentence as such an ordering doesn't use AC. In addition the complex numbers ordered in such a way is, from an order theoretic point of view, <math> \mathfrak{c}</math> many copies of the reals laid out end-to-end (if you get my meaning). This shows that not only can we add a point to the reals we can add uncountably many copies of the reals to the reals without destroying the dense linear ordering.

Thanking you in advance for your time. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 08:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Prime Number ==

You were the last editor to change the article on [[Prime Number]]s. Could you have a look at the section ''Sieve of Eratosthenes''? I tried to raise the interest in changing the - IMO poor - picture on [[Talk:Main Page]], [[Talk:Prime Number]] and [[File talk:Prime number.gif]], but no action took place. Could you have a look into it?
Thanks, [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:28, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

== [[Physics]] ==
Could you please take a look to the last edits? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:20, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

: Why did you revert? I don't necessarily agree with all the edits, but they appeared to be constructive edits. Did you disagree? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:38, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

: At first it seems to be wrong in Mechanics and Thermodynamics. The editor E-mail me and I was not sure; that is why I asked your opinion. Now I will fix the mistake. Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 17:45, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

:: He also made some other edits. Did you object to those also? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== From PatrickD ==

There has been some discussion of the recent changes by RoyL to the [[divergence]] and [[curl]] articles. Your name came up. So you might want to look at those pages, and their histories, and their talk pages, and my [[User_talk:PatrickD]] page. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 21:36, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

==Small Thanks from WLink==
Wanted to thank you for the support you gave for my proposed changes on the relativity page. I am a bit saddened that some people won't see reason, but at least we gave it the old college try. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 07:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== L.A. Official: 55 Jobs After $111B Stimulus ==

The story tease on their main page said 111B.....but it is indeed 111M. Thanks for spotting it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:50, 17 September 2010 (EDT)

== Evidence ==

Should there not be evidence for this? References etc.?

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

User talk:Jpatt

2011-10-05T23:22:24Z

MaxFletcher: /* Request for Admin assistance */ new section

== Archive 2008 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/Subway_Troll Here]

== Archive 2009 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2009]

== Archive 2010 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2010]

== Your block policy ==

I was just wondering; why are you blocking people with the reason that they don't give their name?

People can simply say whatever name they wanted and you wouldn't know if it is true or not.
More importantly the account creation page states that submitting your name is '''optional'''
Can please explain the reasoning behind your block policy?

ps: I'd appreciate you not blocking me merely for asking this question. I just ask out of curiosity ;)

Thanks.

[[User:Philny|Philny]] 18:20, 4 January 2011 (EST)
:Just as it is optional for first name last initial, the block policy is of the administrators discretion. It helps eliminate sock accounts used by [troll]]s and if the user is truly interested in contributing in good faith, they will recreate their username as commanded. Do users/trolls use fake names? absolutely. Are you really Phil? I chose not to recreate your account but I could be wrong about you. Time will tell. Hope this is a sufficient answer. Have a great day! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:28, 4 January 2011 (EST)

:::Jpatt. In all honesty I don't see how your practice would help eliminate sock accounts. People can simply lie about who they are. Socks are best controlled through an IP range block if you asked me.
::Lastly I would think that good faith would be assumed for new people until they explicitly become trolls/vandals. but hey that's just me.
::I'm still trying to get rid of those liberal Wikipepdia ways. [[User:Philny|Philny]] 19:54, 4 January 2011 (EST)

:::Is it foolproof? No. They are not blocked from contributing just blocked from using that name. So it is of good faith on our part to allow them to recreate a username. I did not create the policy and I was subject to the same policy when I first joined. We'll banish someone when needed and we will ferret out those fake accounts over time. To obey an administrators request is the first step toward recognizing a good faith contributor.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:18, 4 January 2011 (EST)

::::Hi. My former name was STramp, but you seem to have decided that that cannot be my real name. I'm not quite sure why?[[User:StevenTramp|StevenTramp]] 21:23, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Re:Welcome! ==

Thanks for the welcome! I'll be sure to read the Editor's Guide ;) --[[User:AznBurger|AznBurger]] 21:36, 19 January 2011 (EST)

== Conservative 3737, "everything you say is conservative" ==

...but really not [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Chris_Matthews&curid=10356&diff=846659&oldid=846644 family-friendly.] Thanks for heading him off! [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:32, 5 February 2011 (EST)

:The IP is a school and he didn't actually cuss which would cross the line. I am willing to give a second chance if the rules are followed. BTW, I hope no hard feelings for targeting you in the past. Your edits were excellent.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:38, 5 February 2011 (EST)
::Life is too short for hard feelings. Good call on the "second chance" thing. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:39, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello, there is a reason I don't use my real name ==

I'll write you an email about it if you like, I would have before but you locked the email so I could not. Account creation was also turned off, which makes recreating my account difficult. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy2|AlaskanEconomy2]] 20:43, 8 February 2011 (EST)
:I now feel pretty foolish not having checked this account before creating that one. Thanks/sorry. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:52, 8 February 2011 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for uploading that image yesterday. With regards to my username, I created it before there was any specific username policy on Conservapedia's Guidelines or Commandments page (even though I've only been contributing recently). If it is important that I have username that contains only my name/initials, I will change it. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 17:40, 18 February 2011 (EST)

== New conservative pages for 2011 ==

I noticed you were laying down plans for pages to create. I think you might consider making a page on the pence amendment, the recent 240-185 house vote to amend Title X to remove the family planning grants from organizations that perform abortions (like planned parenthood). While I support the decision the issue is outside of my area of specialization and I am afraid of getting some important facts wrong. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:43, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:Maybe at some future point. It's too early to determine the outcome. You're welcome to start it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:45, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== uploading images ==

How can I upload non-political, non-controversial images that I made myself to Conservapedia? I suppose you or the Conservapedia administration would like to preview images before uploading them? How do I show them for you to preview? [[User:HPadleckas|HPadleckas]] 21:34, 28 February 2011 (EST)

:Send to conservapedia@zoho.com--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:39, 28 February 2011 (EST)

==Celebrity crime==

Hi, Jpatt. I'm wondering how and when we should report (gloat over?) celebrity crime, like a female pop star arrested for being drunk in public, getting a speeding ticket, etc. Are we trying to prove that Hollywood produces (or encourages) self-indulgent behavior, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:53, 2 March 2011 (EST)

:Personally, I don't have a litmus test for inclusion. I simply take celebrities, be it Democrat or Republican, and post their crimes. As role models, they need to be exposed as to why they make headlines. Their behavior is an example of who "not to follow". If you have suggestions, of course I would work with you. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:04, 2 March 2011 (EST)

::I had nothing in mind, just trying to stimulate thought here. Carry on, my good man! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:21, 5 March 2011 (EST)

== Delete ==

Hey Jpatt - I manually copy-pasted move a page from [[Frankfurt school]] to [[Essay:Frankfurt school]] - but upon examining the content it appears that the original author - CharlieO - copy pasted that from another site. Could you delete both pages? Thanks!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:50, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
:No problem. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:57, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

==Photo upload==
Hi, I would like to upload a photo of myself, I don't have the rights, can you do it for me? Thanks.--[[User:SarahWollstone|SarahWollstone]] 20:35, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
Yes, send to conservapedia@zoho.com --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:19, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
Thanks. :)--[[User:SarahWollstone|SarahWollstone]] 21:23, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

I just sent it to you. :) --[[User:SarahWollstone|SarahWollstone]] 21:32, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

:Done. [http://www.conservapedia.com/images/4/42/Me.jpg]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:41, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

Thank you. :)--[[User:SarahWollstone|SarahWollstone]] 21:44, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

== I need you to check your email ==

K? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 23:20, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

== nice reversions! ==

You're fast, sir.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:50, 2 May 2011 (EDT)
:Did you hear? I'm Quick Draw McGraw!--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:54, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Thank you for the helpful links and the welcome. I hope to become a valuable member of the community.

== Editing the Wicca page ==

I would like to formally request that the "murders" section be removed for the reasons stated on the talk page.

This is not a place to smear other people or post inflammatory material. {{unsigned|HarabecW}}

:I digress, this is a place to educate others and to warn them to stay clear of witchcraft. Find another topic to edit. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:30, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::I have looked at some of the disputed links, and while I don't know enough about the sources themselves to question their reliability, for most of the stories no causal relationship is established between the person's religious beliefs and their actions. One might just as well divide any story about crime between those where the perpetrator was male or female and argue that their gender was the causal factor. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:41, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

:::A person's beliefs and their actions are always tied together whether you agree or not. If Wiccans start making the news for rape, I will start a new section. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:10, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== Stubs ==

Do we use stub tags here on Conservapedia?-[[User:StevenTramp|StevenTramp]] 23:46, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
:It's not really recommended or necessary.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:35, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

== Mistake of an email ==

I sent you an email raising a question - having seen the new evidence you can safely ignore it - sorry for that!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:05, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

==Ravens==

I noticed you reverted changes made to the Tower of London article that mentioned the legend of the ravens. I know you banned the editor for vandalism, but in this case, the story is true. There is a legend telling that if the ravens at the Tower leave, it portends the downfall of both the Tower and the kingdom. I know it's trivia, but it's fun too and I'd love to see it added back into the article. Here's a link about the story. http://www.hrp.org.uk/TowerOfLondon/stories/theravens.aspx [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:32, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
:No problem. Go ahead and add it back.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:38, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks! I'll add the reference too.[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:36, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

== Religion headline ==

Hi - that's a great news story, but I wonder if I may suggest a small change to the wording? At present is says "study came up with similar findings" but no other findings are listed to be similar too; it's an out of context quote.

I'd suggest saying something like "'''[[Religion]] comes naturally, even instinctively, to human beings,''' says a 3-year, multi-million Pound survey conducted by Oxford University." Maybe even add that it is a liberal institution, that offered tenure to Richard Dawkins? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 12:25, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

== Maria Shriver ==

Hi - I noticed you added "Schwarzenegger" for Shriver's last name. I don't believe she ever changed her name legally and has never gone by the name "Schwarzenegger". [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:25, 20 May 2011 (EDT)
:Ok, I'll remove it. After her divorce she can go from Mrs. Maria Shriver to Ms. Maria Shriver. New age liberals are a joke. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:19, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

== user:JimMac ==

Hi - this user is vandalising articles and constantly reverting me. Please can you show him the door? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:52, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

==[[Raymond Davis Affair]]==
Do you know anything of this? The Obama administration evidently invoked Islamic law to circumvent the judicial system in Pakistan to obtain a Blackwater (or whatever) operative in Pakistan only weeks before the Abbotobad raid. People in Pakistan are very upset. The democratically elected regime & military are cooperating with the US because they fear Islamic fundementalism, yet when it suits him, Obama pays $2.3 million in blood money under Koranic law to get a hired mercenary out. Ironic. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:03, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:I haven't heard this but it wouldn't surprise me.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:07, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
::Raymond was CIA--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:07, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

== user:Jefferson ==

I wasn't sure how to contact you other than this, please let me know if there is another way if you would be so kind. I was not aware of the policy against using fact tags, thank you for informing me. I had seen them used in several articles and assumed it was okay. I would appreciate if you would clear something up for me about the citation policy, please: why is it the responsibility of a person who discovers uncited work to find the citation rather than the original poster of the work? I thought it would have been in the spirit of the encyclopedia's "no gossip" rules that statements should be cited and that calling attention to uncited materials would be helpful in clearing the site of gossip. Thanks again for filling me in and not banning me outright to begin with. I appreciate the help![[User:Jefferson|Jefferson]] 23:25, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

:Jefferson, thanks for the mature response. It is the original poster who is supposed to reference. Our suggestion is if you find questionable content, put it on the talk page. If it can be discussed through, then someone can add a citation. If nobody questions the talk page, feel free to delete the questionable content. Unfortunately, this is not spelled out for new users yet. In the scope of ideology, a liberal would find fault with every conservative sentence. So there may be citation requests on other pages but it is not an acceptable form of contribution here. Let me know if I can be of any help. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:47, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps it would be useful to delete the fact tag template all together? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 23:49, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't know why I didn't think of that. For some reason I thought it was built-in to wikimedia but it's a tag, sure it should be deleted. Will discuss with Aschlafly.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:52, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== No rules found for editing a new article ==
The rules encourage discussion of intent of substantial edit of established articles, and discourage taking liberties of simply substantially editing those articles with no prior discussion. But, I have been substantially editing articles which I have created, and which no one else has either edited or commented on ('invisible' editors). Should I discuss with 'invisible' editors my intent of substantial edits of articles in regard to which they are 'invisible'?[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:09, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
:The short answer is no. Discussions will be made upon disagreements. Substantial edits to established articles need not require approval either. Though if you are deleting content instead of adding to or replacing a viewpoint, then you will face resistance from other contributors and reverts. Hope that helps. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:17, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

== Uncited Sentences ==
"[[Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help#Completely_Uncited_Article_or_Completely_Uncited_Section_of_an_Article|If a sentence needs to be cited please use the "fact" template at the end of the sentence.]]" I'm only following Conservapedia protocol. -[[User:StudioFire|StudioFire]] 00:14, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

I also suggest that you reread the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia Commandments]], which include: "''Everything'' you post must be ''true'' and ''verifiable''." as well as "''Do not post personal opinion'' on an encyclopedia entry." There should be a Commandment for Ad hoc reasoning, seeing as how that seems to justify much of the content on this site...[[User:StudioFire|StudioFire]] 00:25, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
:That includes you, StudioFire. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:56, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for the immature response StudioFail which proves the reasoning on the fact tags. We allow content from liberals but if we let them add citation requests- they'll find something wrong with every page.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 10:08, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

== revision delete ==

What's the point of oversighting vandals if all they do is blank the page?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:29, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:Aesthetics, red links are messy. Just so you know, France won the 100 year war between England and most of their colonial wars in Africa.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:07, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:: <nowiki>:D</nowiki> I've a feeling that French military history is going to be something of a meme around my presence. Someone who dislikes France might say France took their time kicking the British out during the 100 years war. Someone who likes France would then refer you to William the Conqueror. Then we'd be told that William the Conqueror doesn't count, because he wasn't French, he was a Normand. Never mind that because of his conquest of England English courts spoke French for 300 years after his death. The whole subject is rather tired to me. I've never been one for Patriotism, either for France or the USA. I know better than to associate myself with the failures and achievements of others just because we share an ethnic group or political boundaries.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:18, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

== Dike! ==

What brought on that reversion to a perfectly innocuous edit? --[[User:XavierC|XavierC]] 21:12, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

:Just curious as to your intentions. Carry on great patron saint.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:14, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

== Thank you for your kind welcome! ==

I appreciate it. =) -Melissa Fox, 2011

== Regarding "Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform" Essay ==

I was surprised at the boldness of this essay. Have you ever read George Orwell's ''Animal Farm''? If not, I'd like to suggest you at least read a comprehensive synopsis of it. It has the very famous line "All animals are equal, but some animals are ''more'' equal than others.", and I couldn't help but feel that your essay had the same viewpoint (except with humans, obviously).

Another quote from the book for you to consider:

{{Cquote|Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?|20px|20px|George Orwell's ''Animal Farm''}}

Perhaps you can see the slight correlation I made between the your essay and ''Animal Farm''. I do not write this in spite, and I have no malicious intentions...I just thought I'd use my First Amendment right to instigate some casual, intelligent conversation. --[[User:LifeHelper|LifeHelper]] 13:38, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

:I did read Animal Farm about 25 years ago. Subconscience-based viewpoint? You are what you fill your mind with but I wrote it due to liberals insistence that Conservapedia be fair. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it and the truth is still the truth, even if nobody believes it. To be fair is to give lies equal time. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:59, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

::Forgive me for quoting Orwell again;

{{Cquote|If all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.|20px|20px|George Orwell's ''1984''}}

Food for thought! -[[User:LifeHelper|LifeHelper]] 14:27, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

A lie never becomes the truth, only puts on the appearance of truth, clothed in the truth but at heart, still a lie. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:09, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

::"A just weight and balance are the LORD's." -- Proverbs, 16:11. [[User:DavidHRG|DavidHRG]] 14:34, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Sure, I believe that. Judgement is for the Lord. "What is desirable in a man is his kindness, and it is better to be a poor man than a liar." --Proverbs 19:22 So we are able to tell what is wrong and what is right, we don't wait for His judgement to tell us.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:57, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

== BHO ==

Hi. I was just curious as to why you deleted my edit to the Obama page. Because last time I checked, I could source my claim, and yours just happened to be hear-say conspiracy theory that you're wasting your time with. If you're searching for the truth and not slander why not go with the claim that can be proven like mine? - http://conservapedia.com/User:MAVE182

:Mave182, maybe you didn't read my message to you. Proven claims... kidding right? How do you get proof when the person were talking about hasn't yet disclosed it? Hear-say, conspiracy theory? Here is my message to you, again. '' a few mass visits, black liberation theology, invitation for atheists to join WH Faith-based initiatives, no baptism record and much more secrecy. The refs just don't legitimize Obama's faux Christianity.'' Let me add his disdain for traditional marriage, his support of death to womb children, his constant pandering to the Muslim faith? He's as Christian as much as Stalin was.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:02, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Hey my conservative brethren. In case you don't know what proven means, here's how. You say something then back it up with evidence, not free floating hate speech you heard from Glenn Beck. Cite just one of those claims with a source that agrees, and be source i mean something legitimate. As for my claim, here's a few things that back up his Christianity.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36287446/Www-barackobama-com-Factcheck-2007-11-12-Obama-Has-Never
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27775757
http://www.ucc.org/news/obama-inauguration.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1907610,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303619.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/07/11/finding-his-faith.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOOCABMz6jg
You shouldn't deny truth just because it doesn't cater to your narrow minded, slandering viewpoint.
--[[User:MAVE182|MAVE182]] 22:20, 1 July 2011 (EDT) 

Love how you provide ''the drinkers of Obama's bathwater'' as proof. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:29, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

::Hi JPatt. I gave the guy a day to review the site and its aims. Personally I don't agree with many of the things on Conservapedia but I respect its rules and understand its right to present what information it does. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:10, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

:::The truth is non-negotiable, lack of agreement is not an easy thing to digest. As I observe on social media, the right is magnifying each and every flaw in their candidates. Let's hope that our common sense and values overcome the many flaws we all have.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:26, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
::::From our flaws we find perfection.[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 03:09, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

Tolaration of more than one religion doesnt make you a bad christian. In fact, I believe if you can't do that, it makes you a very poor Christian. And if you prefer, here's a source that doesn't drink obama's bathwater, but rather chugs the radical right's urine. http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/28/obama-christian-choice
As for Max, the entire point of this site is putting up a non-bias viewpoint that is based on fact. Fact is, Barack Obama is a practicing Christian. You may disagree with his politics which is fine, but according to the 1st Ammendment, this man shouldn't be denied the right to practice his religion and shouldn't be slandered as a Christian for unrelated issues. --[[User:MAVE182|MAVE182]] 17:01, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

:I refuse to reply to any future posts of yours on my page. Your sharp tongue speaks all righteous leftist points, a Cafeteria Christian, one that ignores Intrinsic Evil and an apologist for outright sin. What Christian would support the evil that Obama supports? You slander Glenn Beck, you slander Fox News and then you have to gall to call me a slanderer. You can chose to live like the pigs do but you aren't fooling anyone here, you hear?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:16, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

::It's very simple MAVE and since you came off ''your'' high horse, I guess that does merit a response. I am talking beyond accuracy and beyond statistics. I am talking about absolutes. Who are you MAVE? Let's talk about MAVE, hidden in the shadows, full of knowledge- yet identity unknown, a keyboard diva? To continue to communicate with you would mean I have to match wits with an unknown, convert you into my way of thinking. When I know already that you are passionate, yet deceptive, not intent to learn, only to play games and waste time. Just because I will call out wrong and confront evil, don't try and pass it off as like I'm trying to act as a tough guy. You just make yourself sound thuggish. Jesus rules! Amen. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:19, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== I thought you might enjoy this ==

*[[Essay: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]

::Fixed typo [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:01, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

==Book of Tobit==

Hi Jpatt; I was looking for the Conservapedia article on the Book of Tobit; it's a red link in the Bible article. If I read the search results correctly, you deleted it. May I ask why? I'm interested in working on an article about Tobit unless there's a good reason for omitting from Conservapedia. Thanks in advance --[[User:Bwebster|Bwebster]] 19:27, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

:I don't recall deleting but it may have been a copied source. Please, recreate how you feel best. Incorporate deleted information if it is valid.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:18, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== John Adams "Notable Quote" Error ==

I just came across the article on John Adams and I found an error. You listed as a notable quote "[The Declaration of Independence] That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity." However the accompanying footnote takes you to Gingrich's book, Rediscovering God in America pg 6 at Google books where the quote is attributed to John ''Quincy'' Adams. Im new to Conservapedia so I dont know if I should go ahead and make the edit. I'll just leave it to you. --[[User:JR|JR]] 13:20, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
:Newbie, nice to meet you. Now that is a good catch and clearly an error on my part. In the future, no harm nor foul to edit pages. Quotes are tough to verify. Sites like Brainyquote will not suffice. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:00, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Nice to meet you too. Ive read the edit policy since my post so Im up to speed on what to do now. Thanks! --[[User:JR|JR]] 19:59, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

== Thank you ==
Thank you for moving my new article to one with a proper name. I wasn't sure how to go about it, so thank you. Any tips on how to edit/create articles would help alot, if you have the time of course. --[[User:CAndrs|CAndrs]] 20:10, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

== Quadrupling Conservapedia's traffic ==

I have a simple plan which I think could quadruple Conservapedia's web traffic in a short time that will not cost any money. I should find out in a week if I get the cooperation of a couple of key individuals. The only downside of my plan is it doesn't involve the concepts of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]], [[Atheism and obesity|mentioning the obesity with any subcultures]] or referring to [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|atheism as a worldview for clowns.]] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I think my simple plan will be implemented based on some receptive feedback I received. I have to implement some things first. Not sure how fast it will happen though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:26, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

== FOIA ==
[[User:FOIA]] has been blocked? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:24, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
:Never mind. I see what happened. Good block. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:40, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== Singer images ==

I found some replacements from the Wikimedia Commons. They're on the page now. Thanks!!!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 08:18, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

I thank you greatly, Jpatt!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:57, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Unblocked ==

Thanks. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 09:06, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks for the invite. I decline.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I knew you would decline, but I didn't want to be impolite. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:19, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Thanks for undoing the vandalism on my page!--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Brewmaster's degree ==

Hi JPatt, I noticed that you added [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Worst_College_Majors&curid=102717&diff=901252&oldid=891798 brewmaster] to the list of "worst college majors." That made me think of a friend of mine who is an actual brewmaster. Would you believe that he can basically live anywhere he wants to, and there will always be a job for him wherever he goes (provided there are breweries nearby)? In whatever economy, anywhere in the world, there's a built-in demand for what he's capable of making. I'd call that a pretty darned good major. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:28, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
:LOL, yeah I think i would enjoy being a brewmaster. Doesn't sound too stressful. Anyway, I gained the insight from this months Popular Science magazine Awesome Labs- 25 of the coolest places to pursue science. Anyway, it costs alot of money to go to college. Learning to brew your own beer is done by millions of people without a degree. "Every year, 10 or so student gain careers in small business" - says the brewmaster professor. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:54, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

==Ferrari==
What is up with these guys? I can barely think of a more objective fact than "Ferraris are overpriced." Even Ferrari owners wouldn't argue with me, being overpriced is part of why people buy them so they can show off their money. How do I proceed? --CraigF 3:59 August 16th (ETC)
:Ok, I think they final got my logic. [[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 4:01, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Me personally, I like the Lamborghini. It is however, a bit overpriced as well.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:44, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I like Lambos too, sort of the muscle cars of Italy, but I've still seen them get trounced by American iron too many times to justify their huge price tags. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 22:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
==[[Henry Ford]]==
Sorry to bother you again, but I'm having trouble. I tried to remove some slanderous remarks from the Henry Ford page, but people reverted me and demanded references to refute a bunch of propaganda designed to harm Ford's reputation. At the same time they want references to prove an obvious fact that Ferdinand Porsche happily worked with the Nazis. I don't really get it, this is an pro American wiki that is focused on fact not propaganda. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 00:43, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:Sorry again, it looks like it was resolved, I guess I was wrong. I guess it is good that I am learning, but I'm going to have to really evaluate my thinking. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 01:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vandal ==

Pleas block vandal. http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/HankK
:Thank you. --[[User:ZachJ|ZachJ]] 16:49, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:| Liberal wandal terminated. I expect we'll see him again before public school is back in session. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:54, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
== Removing facts ==
Ok I admit I was wrong about Henry Ford. History isn't my best subject, but SharonW keeps removing well known facts from my articles and says she can't find references. I found some references and readded what I said, but what if she changes it back, I get the impression she doesn't know that much about cars. I have to go to bed, so don't worry about responding unitl tomorrow. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 02:52, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
:I like the pages you are adding. With that said, we take this project seriously. I suggest you let others change your work as they see fit. They'll likely take the edge off your comments but the rest remains, don't take it personal. I'll back you up my friend, just keep adding and let me know any problems that occur. We will work through it together.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:37, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks Jpatt! --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:11, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== RLorian's block ==

Hi, JPatt. RLorian was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&curid=114693&diff=906987&oldid=906984 reverting vandalism]. not really edit-warring. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 13:27, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

==Conservapedia down sometimes==
Hi Jpatt, I've noticed that sometimes Conservapedia goes down while I'm using it. The really weird thing is that this only seems to happen after I make a couple of edits. I took a break from editing for a few days and never had any problems reading articles, but today I started editing again and after a couple of minutes I couldn't open any pages. Am I the victim of cyber attacks?
--[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 21:03, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
:No. IT just happens every so often as far as I can tell.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:04, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Wait a minute ==

Doesn't McCain have his favorite American hero story? Why was he swapped out? I mean, keep Reagan, but you should still keep McCain. I don't know that Reagan has a famous military story to tell. --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 15:00, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's a gallery of American heroes, not necessarily war heroes. Reagan led the collapse of the Soviet Union. McCain on the other hand is respected for his service to country during captivity, not actually a leader of hero caliber. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:14, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::My understanding was that the Soviet Union would collapse anyway. Communism cannot sustain itself! --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 16:01, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
:::It was going to collapse. Reagan's big military thing only made it worse for them because they had to keep pace.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:23, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Reagan gets the credit just like B Hussein Obama can get credit for Bin Laden. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:22, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
:The US actually was more intimately involved with the capturing and killing of Bin Laden because our very own men and women did it. Credit to CIA!!! --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 17:24, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::There is a long list of those that deserve credit, starting with Gen. Petraeus. Obama ultimately gets the nod because as leader, he kept Bush's policies in place to finish what was started. As far as the "gutsy call" the lib media tried to portray-- that's balderdash. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
==Vandalism==
I found some liberal vandalism that [[User:TerryB]] put into the dictionary project. I fixed it, but he probably should be blocked. He used the edit summary "improve" and said that conservatives forbid you to marry who you love, a ridiculous notion. I'm also having problems with other liberals trying to water down a variety of definitions, what can be done? --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 01:29, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:There is more than one liberal troll adding nonsense to the dictionary project. I will go through the project today and remove false entries and individuals from Conservapedia deserving of a block. Thanks Craig. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:22, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Great job limiting the amount of vandalism in that recent vandal attack. Of course, Phase III of Conservapedia gaining additional web traffic is totally impervious to CP vandals significantly affecting it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

User talk:CPWebmaster

2011-10-05T23:21:49Z

MaxFletcher: /* Request for Admin assistance */ new section

<div style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 180px; color: white; padding: 0;">
<div style="float:left; background-color: #97c000; width: 85%; height: 160px; margin-top: 10px;">
<div style="font-size: 200%; text-align: center; padding-top: 10px;">Welcome to CPWebmaster's talk page</div>
* Please leave your comments/suggestions/anything else below
* I will get back to you ASAP
* Please, no complaints
* Archives are on the right -> over there
* Thanks and happy editing!
</div>
<div style="float: right; background-color: #74c0fa; width: 10%; height: 160px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center;">
<div style="font-size: 120%;">[[User_talk:CPWebmaster/Archive1|Archive1]] 
[[User_talk:CPWebmaster/Archive2|Archive2]] 
[[User_talk:CPWebmaster/Archive3|Archive3]]</div>
</div>
</div>
[[Image:Banhammer2.jpg|thumb|600px|right|'''CPWebmaster''' is hereby awarded the prestigious & coveted '''Banhammer''' barnstar for tireless vigilence against fascists, vandals & trolls!]]



[[File:A Merry Christmas neon.jpg|center|300px]]
----

== Look ==

Look at my talk page. --[[User:TimS|Tim]] [[User talk:TimS|Talk]]Formerly CPAdmin1 17:25, 2 January 2009 (EST)

==Web question==

Hey, so you're the webmaster? I was wondering, you know how lots of websites have that little mini-logo up at the beginning of the URL at the top of the page? I was wondering if maybe you knew how to make one. I think it would look good if CP could have a logo in the URL, instead of the search engine logo which appears now. What do you think? [[User:AddisonDM]] 7 January 2009

:Addison, meet Phil. Phil, meet Addison. Introductions done! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:20, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Haha :) [[User:AddisonDM]] 7 January 2009

== Great favicon! ==

That is a terrific "mini-logo" (favicon) you made for the tabs - I love it! [[User:Taj|Taj]] 23:03, 7 January 2009 (EST)

:Super-fantastic, looks 3D--Jpatt 23:39, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::[http://1heckofaguy.com/wp-content/_2thumbs.jpg] --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:20, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:::Cool! Thanks for doing that. Another step towards looking professional :) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 8 January 2009

Thanks! [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:15, 8 January 2009 (EST)

== New addition to Spam filter?==

I think a new string has been added to the spam filter in the last week--it's four colons : in a row. That's going to cause all sorts of problems with the indenting on talk pages. Would you be able to check and remove it if it's there? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 12:16, 10 January 2009 (EST)

== Useful Tools ==

Seem to be missing from check user. Can we get them back? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:30, 14 January 2009 (EST)

==Move page error==
Hi. Go to Category:Move requests. In that category is a request for Riemann Integral. When I move the page, I get an error, having to do with the [[Object]] page. Try a move yourself and maybe you can find out what this error is. I've seen it countless other times doing page moves too. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:39, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== Joaquin ==

Hello! Just so you know, TK and I figured out that you can put the accent in Joaquin's name - it's just every page before the crash that had an accent in its title was somehow corrupted. See [[Niccolò_Machiavelli]])--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:32, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:Ah, I see you discovered that on your own - sorry for the post, then.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)

At [[Salvador Dali]] there are many images that have a problem related to the ´. Could you fix it or do I have to upload again all the images? The big problem is that this bug is in all images with an special thing like "Ñs" or "´".

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:04, 2 February 2009 (EST)

OK, thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:17, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Maths problem ==

The Maths codes are not working, and are preventing pages with them being displayed. That they weren't working was reported on [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany]], but now trying to even display that page produces a database syntax error. The same applies to my talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:20, 3 February 2009 (EST)
: I see that problem has gone, although the maths codes themselves are still not working. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:18, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::I saw changes to CP Desk just now, clicked on it, got this message:

<blockquote>
A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "MathRenderer::_recall". MySQL returned error "1267: Illegal mix of collations (latin1_swedish_ci,IMPLICIT) and (utf8_general_ci,COERCIBLE) for operation '=' (localhost)".
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

:: Yea, that was the error Philip just mentioned above. I was testing the math out, apparently I haven't got it working yet! [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 17:10, 3 February 2009 (EST)
::: I was having the same problems, but now some of them seem to be fixed too. Thank you for all the hard work you've done. The math pages still have some issues: see [[:Category:Mathematics]] for a sample of pages with names that had non-English characters that have now become garbled. Redirects from the unaccented pages are throwing database errors too: see [[Sierpinski triangle]], which redirects to the problematic "Sierpiński triangle". I looked into other fallout with the math articles and it seems "Sierpiński's constant" (which became "<nowiki>Sierpi%C3%85%E2%80%9Eski%27s_constant</nowiki>") got deleted before the cause of the problem was ascertained. I don't remember that page, but based on the time of the deletion, I'd guess it was mistakenly deleted when the garbled characters suddenly appeared when CP came back online. It probably should be undeleted. I can only imagine what miracles you're pulling behind the scenes. Keep up the good work! You have all our support. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 17:12, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Joaquin ==

His page seems troubled again, and it appears there is a re-direct to a re-direct? Anyway, just another item for your list when you get caught up! :p --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:30, 4 February 2009 (EST)

: In the mid time could I get the possibility to upload new images? Joaquin --[[User:JMR10|JMR10]] 15:17, 4 February 2009 (EST) --[[User:JMR10|JMR10]] 20:34, 5 February 2009 (EST) --[[User:JMR10|JMR10]] 23:02, 7 February 2009 (EST)

== Sysops ==

I am back. I just need to recover the tools of sysop. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Funny characters ==

Hi. Just to let you know that there are still a very few pages where special characters seem to be causing problems - see [[Special:DoubleRedirects]] (in the case of Machiavelli and Balboa, I can't access the pages they are redirecting to). Not a big problem, but one that could use tidying up when you have time. Thanks--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:27, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== Unaccessible Titles ==

Hey CPWebmaster, I'm really sorry to burden you with yet another issue, but I've just now discovered a problem that I think may not be fixable. The [[Front de libération du Québec]] was recently deleted by a sysop, so I assumed that there was another bad title due to the special characters. However, with every title previously, I've been able to access the "messed up" title, and then I could just point it to a sysop and the sysop could move it. With this article - I can not access it. You can verify that the page exists [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Search?search=+in+which+British+Trade+Commissioner+%5B%5BJames+Cross%5D%5D+was+kidnapped+and+Quebec+Labor+Minister+%5B%5BPierre+Laporte%5D%5D+was+murdered.&go=Go here],but sadly the link doesn't work - it takes you to the correctly formatted page - which was deleted (and even if the page wasn't deleted, it would be useless anyway). My only hope is that perhaps it's my computer or maybe that you know of some back alley you could possibly take (or perhaps you could at least access the content of the article). I'm sorry I can't offer you any help, but I wish you the best of luck. Once again, I apologize for being the bearer of bad news.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:36, 11 February 2009 (EST)
:Wow that's amazing - great job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)

== Bible references ==

Sorry to bother you again, but it seems there's a problem with the automatic Bible reference tagger. The links (like this: Numbers 17:13) only work if you have certain skins chosen (see [[User talk:Ed Poor#New page]]). This is a really useful feature so it would be good to get it working for all users in my opinion. Thanks--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:29, 19 February 2009 (EST)

==Page Count==
Hey,
Conservative ended up resetting the page count on [[evolution]] from 500,000 to 0 by deleting the page. I tried restoring the page, but only the history was restored and the page count is still the new one. Do you know how to get the old page count back?? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:42, 3 March 2009 (EST)

*Addison, the page count you see is internal, means absolutely nothing, and does not effect our rankings, or anything else, as the search engine bots don't read the internal counters. If a Senior Administrator like Conservative does that, I would advise you to check with Mr. Schlafly before initiating any actions on your own. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:52, 3 March 2009 (EST)

:Actually I talked with him telling him this and he asked if I could restore the internal page count. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:54, 3 March 2009 (EST)

::Well, then actually, he should have asked, but we have been through this before with him, and it could not be reset, was the answer we got then. No matter, I am sure Phillip will do what he can. :D -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:19, 3 March 2009 (EST)

==Spellcheck==
I noticed on another wiki that when editing an article, misspelled words were underlined by red, like in Microsoft Word. Is this part of the wiki software? If so, maybe it should be installed? I don't know if you know how, but please look into that. It would eliminate many mistakes in our articles. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:09, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

==suggested searches==
Hey Philip, you know how on Wikipedia when you begin to search it pulls down as list, and if you mistype something it comes up on the next page with "Were you looking for...." Do you know if those are features we could turn on here, or do they have to do with which version of MediaWiki is installed? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:01, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== Page-blanking ==

A thought: would it be possible to make Capcha take effect when a page is blanked? Earlier today a malcontent started blanking pages en mass; I was reverting him/her, but since many of the pages contained external links I was slowed down by the Capcha system while the page-blanker remained blithely unaffected. The software must be able to spot page-blanking, because I seem to recall it gives an automatic edit summary 'removing all content from page'. Worth looking into?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 18:27, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

== Article Request ==

Just something that I wanted to ask...could you please take down that 'satire of atheism' picture on the Atheism article? Or unlock it so that I can take it out? It seems rude and biased, as well as being false in its statement. Or, add a 'satire of christianity' to the Christianity article. [[User:KnightOfTheNight|KnightOfTheNight]] 21:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)KnightOfTheNight

*You must be confused, Knight. This is a Christian wiki, a conservative and Christian encyclopedia. What atheists are displeased about, bothers us not at all, and we don't apologize for that. We don't try to be neutral at all, either, for that would mean ignoring facts and the truth. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:12, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

== User rights ==

Philip-
My younger brother Mark just registered for the economics course homework under the name of MarkGB, and cannot edit. I noticed that you said in an edit summary that new users were having trouble editing. Can you give him the appropriate rights please?
Thanks, Duncan

== Stray HTML tags ==

Hi. I've just noticed that when you look at an old version of a page (eg [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bank_run&oldid=745983 this one], the header saying that it is an old version of a page contains some stray HTML tags. Is this a problem that can be fixed?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:55, 18 January 2010 (EST)

== Thanksgiving, 2010 ==

That looks much better! Don't eat too much, Phil! :D --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:20, 24 November 2010 (EST)

== Double redirects ==

Hello.
I was going to fix the double redirects and was able to get to two of them but the rest are locked to prevent editing. Most of them seem to be talk pages for various "essays". I wouldn't have bothered you but the person who did the locking has his talk page locked and I cannot figure out how to bring up this subject with the individual.
Thank you and God bless. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 16:34, 1 February 2011 (EST)

== Problem with the database? ==

Hi, you seem to be the tech guy of this wiki - I got your name via [[Help:Contents]]'s "handy list" of [[Special:ListUsers&group=bureaucrat|bureaucrats]]. My question: is there a problem with the database? At least two of my comments vanished without leaving any trace. The damage isn't great: I was able to reconstruct the [[User_talk:DouglasA#My_comments|longer comment]] from a draft which was still stored in my cache. But perhaps other users were afflicted by such glitches, too. I would really appreciate if you could have a look into it! Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:54, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

== Bible Translation Project ==

I am going to start a Bible Translation project for the Philippines. I would like to talk with some folks to learn some insights, especially "what we would do differently had we only known from the beginning...".

My conservative views are very similar to many that I see. I would appreciate any advice, tips, ect.

Thanks.

[[User:TheYachtsman|TheYachtsman]] 5:30PM, 16 August 2011 (CDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

User talk:Chippeterson

2011-10-05T23:21:29Z

MaxFletcher: /* Request for Admin assistance */ new section

{|style="width:750px; height:60px; text-align:center;background-color:#C0C0C0;" align="center"
|-style="background-color:##C0C0C0;text-align:center;"
|style="background-color:#fff;width:100px;"|[[File:Conservapedia logo2.png|180px]]
|style="background-color:#C0C0C0"|Welcome to the talk page of {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}, an Administrator for Conservapedia. Clear and concise messages are most likely to get the fastest response and prevent misunderstandings. If you have been blocked or wish to talk about a personal matter, please email me instead. I don't have the authority in most cases to overturn another admin's block, necessitating that you speak to them. If you are unable to contact the blocking user, I can attempt to contact them or forward your email to a body empowered to consider appeals.

I look forward to serving you and thank you for your contributions to Conservapedia.

Sincerely,

'''''{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}'''''
|}
----
==Pete Domenici==

Thanks a lot for your work on the [[Pete Domenici]] article! It looks great! --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:06, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

== McCain ==

Just wanted you to know I think you have done some very good work adding to and formating the article! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:51, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of the McCain article, if you're going to revert my edit regarding his lapel pin, then make sure you go ahead and do the same for [[Barack Obama]]. [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:07, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::Even though I didn't edit that info into Barack's page. I was trying to be somewhat consistent in the site's treatment of Presidential candidates, since to do so with actual issues 'twould be stamped out like a drunken mutiny (and probably labeled as such...) [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Wikproject:News==

Thanks for volunteering for the Wikiproject:News. I'm just wondering, what is your Political Affiliation? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:03, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:Well, when I'm 18 I'll definitely join the Republican party. And I'm strongly conservative.

::Ok, thanks for the info. I look forward to your contributions to the news project. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:33, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

You signed up to work on the Wikproject:News. What would you like to do for the project? Are you interested in <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|creating news articles]]</nowiki>, [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page|wanted pages]] or working on the [[Wikiproject:News/Previous Breaking News|Previous News archives]]? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:16, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I notice that there has been no news on this site over the protesters for the upcoming Democrat convention, there are a lot of groups trying to make this like 1968. If there's any major event that's not being covered, I'll tell you Dean.

== Testing for AIDS ==

How is Biden stating he was tested for AIDS a controversial comment? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:09, 25 August 2008 (EDT).

The crowd laughed when he said that Jareddr, because it sounded like they tested for Aids together. Or at least that's what Barack Obama thought.

:I understand the crowd laughed for the way it came out. But how is it c
controversial? And, p.s., it's AIDS--all capital letters, since it's an acronym. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:19, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

controversial - of, relating to, or arousing controversy. When a politician comes off saying that he was tested for AIDS with someone when he wasn't then thats clearly arousing and controversial.

:Except, as was quoted, he DIDN'T say he was tested with Obama. The crowd laugh because it may have sounded that way, but reading the text, that's a pretty far stretch. "I've got tested for AIDS, I know Barack's got tested for AIDS..." Heck, I could say the same thing since I know Barack was tested for AIDS. Of course, that doesn't seem to suggest that we were tested together, nor does it make it controversial. It's a far stretch and I think it doesn't deserve inclusion in the section. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:36, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama, and the large crowd all thought that's what it sounded like. And Barack Obama saying that he wanted to make it clear that he was not tested with Biden, then it clearly caused controversy at that debate. Therefor, making it a controversial comment. But go ahead, take it out if that's what you want.

==Wikiproject:News/Suggestions==
Chippeterson, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives#Chippeterson|your name]]</nowiki> so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 08:20, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Chippeterson, I noticed you want to be first in Wikiproject:News/Suggestions. I have a suggestion for you. I added a new section called <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions#Rewrite_current_headlines|Rewrite current headlines]]</nowiki>. You have a much higher chance of getting the lead if you rewrite some of these headlines. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Obama Speech News headline==

I had posted a comment on the Main Talk page regarding the accuracy of the headline you wrote on Obama's speech. DeanS has informed me that he'd prefer a direct response from you before any changes are made, so can you take a look and respond there? Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Removing Templates ==

I appreciate your attempt to add templates to the candidate pages. After having taken a longer look at them, they just seem a little out-of-place since they're tailored specifically for president and v.p., and not nominees. I'm going to take them off, but hopefully a sysop will come forward and modify the template slightly so that it can be used for nominations as well. It would only take changing a few letters here and there and it's all set. Hopefully it pulls through b/c it's informative, but just not appropriate the way it's currently designed. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

O.K. Jareddr, but I do hope that a sysop adds template's for Senator's and Governor's. Just make sure that you keep the pictures.

:I absolutely agree templates should be added for those positions (as well as Representatives). Sorry about the pictures, didn't realize they were embedded into the template codes. Thanks for fixing my deletions! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:07, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== New Privileges ==

Congrats on your promotion! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:41, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations Chippeterson. Now you can upload your own photos - (non-AP) of course. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:42, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow! Thank you so much! I'm going to have some fun with this.
:You deserve it Chip. Good work! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:09, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

::I've been following your edits and you certainly deserved the promotion(s). One small request is to remember categories and bolding the main term, but you seem to be getting better about this. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:07, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Harry Reid Photo ==

Could we use [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Harry_Reid_official_portrait.jpg this picture] instead? It's his official portrait. Thank you --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

I'd rather stick with the current one.

: That's fine, if it's public domain. Can you please include the source of the all the photos that you upload on their image pages? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:56, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I think I've had that photo saved for 2-3 years. But I'll copy/paste the source of the photo's from now on.

Chippeterson, you can use this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Template:Fair_use fair use template] from now on.

For the previous uploaded photos, add the source info to the image's talk page and I will transfer it to the image's content page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:12, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

DeanS, I put the source for the photo's on the talk pages. The ones on Harry Reid and Michael Steele I had saved for a long time, so I replaced them with new ones with the fair use template. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] September 11 2008

Glad to see we're now using Reid's official portrait. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:50, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Images ==

When uploading images, I think you should be naming them with a more descriptive filename than just a number. Perhaps something like "ReaganBush" for the last one, or "BushMedal" or something that provides more information to the users. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:16, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Replacing pages with redirects ==

Chip, in the cases I've replaced on of your new entries with a redirect, it was because the new information was too similar to an existing article. In the case of [[Classes]], I noticed that the information in [[Class]] didn't match the meaning you had written, so I move your content in its place and then moved the previous content to a more specified page. Please be aware that I take into consideration why an article was created before replacing it with a redirect. --[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:29, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

===Categories===

I didn't want to start a new subject header for this. I noticed with your newest edits that you've been avoiding [[:Category:Dictionary]] when you can. This makes me VERY happy :-) Thank you! -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

==Congratulations==
...on getting your ton (if you're not there quite, it can only be a matter of one or two more). You're an inspiration to lazier mortals! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:20, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
I spoke too late! Well done, Chip. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations Chippeterson! In recognition of your superb contributions, you are featured on the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=66589&diff=516845&oldid=516804 Main page news] section. Thanks for your efforts on the wanted articles and the news suggestions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 21:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks DeanS. It feels really nice to be appreciated. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] September 14 2008

==Privileges==
Chip, I know you have upload rights, but do you have block rights? There's some people putting in nonsense and I can't find anyone who's on to block them. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 22:02, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Sorry Jeffrey, I don't have any block rights. {{unsigned|Chippeterson}}

:Chip, you didn't know it, but you DO have block rights.

:20:18, September 10, 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Chippeterson from Upload to Upload, Block

:Now you can help block these vandals. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:11, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

That's great DeanS. I'll be sure to keep a look out.

Chip, please verify the photo source BEFORE uploading photos. Do not upload anything from AP or Reuters, they do not allow fair use. I deleted one of the photos and another one looks suspicious. See the talk pages. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:51, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== New pages ==

Chip, please be careful when making new pages. For example, you just created [[honest]], but [[honesty]] already exists. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Then honest shouldn't be on the wanted pages. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] September 20 2008

:If it was on the wanted pages then someone linked to it somewhere, and it needed a redirect. It's no biggie, I'm just trying to save you work in the future. In general we want nouns as the subject of an article, not adjectives. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Chip, when creating new articles, please watch out for circular definitions. I've seen several of your contributions over the last five days fall into this pattern. It makes the entries only marginally better than a red link. Examples: [[supervision]], [[systemic]], [[curvature]], [[happiness]], [[breakaway]], [[enshrine]], [[negative]], [[descent]], [[honest]], [[enlighten]]. Please take note. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 12:27, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== Images ==

Chippeterson, you just uploaded an image from Getty Images. We don't allow that unless you have express permission from the owner. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for telling me Aschlafly. I'll find something else. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] Oct 3 2008

When you upload images from whitehouse.gov (or other .gov or public domain images), use this public domain template instead of the fair use template.

Template:Public domain image 
<nowiki>{{Public domain image
|source = <source>
|usernotes = <optional:user notes>
}}</nowiki>

Another user also suggested uploaders use names relative to the image, instead of a bunch of numbers. Like you did with the Cheney image. Thanks for your contributions Chip. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:49, 2 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia Day 2008 ==
{|style="width:300px; height:200px; text-align:center" border="5px #0000BB solid" align="left"
|-
|
[[Image:Champion cup.jpg|175px|center]]
This is to certify that

'''[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]'''

completed ''237 new pages'' and is awarded

'''<big>First place</big>'''

'''<big>News Section - Wanted Pages</big>'''

From Conservapedia, on November 21, 2008
|}

{|style="width:300px; height:200px; text-align:center" border="5px #0000BB solid" align="right"
|-
|
[[Image:Champion cup.jpg|175px|center]]
This is to certify that

'''[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]'''

completed ''33 suggestions'' and is awarded

'''<big>Second place</big>'''

'''<big>News Section - News Suggestions</big>'''

From Conservapedia, on November 21, 2008
|}

{{clear}}

Chippeterson, Congratulations on being the top contributor to the news section wanted pages. You also came in second place for the news suggestions. Your accomplishments are posted on the Main page. Thanks for your many contributions to Conservapedia and the news project. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:30, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Thank you!

== NewsProject - Wanted pages ==

Since you are a member of the news project, I need your help with wanted pages. We now have over 100 wanted pages and I need you to pick a few to work on this coming week. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:30, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Richard Nixon ==

You've been doing a massive about of work! It's looking good, Chip. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:56, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks TK.

== Guard Dog ==

*Don't get mad....Guard Dog has a touch of the rabies, Chip, and simply went mad with the newer version of Wikimedia we are using! I was getting around to unblocking everyone, but a busy day at work....sorry you were caught up in it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:19, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

No problem TK, I understand the mistake. '''[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]'''

== Unblocking ==

Please do not unilaterally undo another admin's block, but rather e-mail the admin in question and explain the situation to him. This procedure has been set out in the Guidelines by Mr. Schlafly. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 12:01, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

== revert ==
Thank you for your efforts--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:27, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

== [[Dianne Feinstein]] ==

Better check your sources again....Alan Cranston preceded her in the Senate! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:20, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Colin Powell projecting his failure unto John McCain is a fact ==

I'll concede this may be debateable, but to immediately threaten me with blocking me over asserting this is a Gestapo tactic I would have expected on [[Wikipedia]], not Conservapedia. [[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 17:49, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

:What you wrote Brown25 was an opinion, one that I happen to agree with, but definitely not a fact. '''[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]''' July 19, 2009

::The bit about the WMD's was speculation, unsupported, and it is a known fact (for all but the radical left) that the WMD information mislead everyone, because it seemingly turned out to be bad intelligence, not only on the part of the CIA, but MI-6 in the U.K., as well as other foreign intelligence agencies. Therefore it cannot ever be stated it was a lie, since what Powell said, what Bush said, was based upon their best belief and information at hand. See the difference, Brown25? Consistency isn't one of Powell's strengths. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:30, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for noticing that jabber on the cat page, Chip...I told myself I would get back to it to remove it! Well, best laid plans, and all that.... --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:00, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

No problem TK.'''[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]''' August 3, 2009

==Obituary==

Wow, that's a lot of writing. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Eunice_Kennedy_Shriver&curid=94082&diff=691858&oldid=691844&rcid=757801] Did you do all that yourself? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:27, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Yes. As I said in my bio, I enjoy writing biographies. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] August 12, 2009

:Can you dig anything up on [[In Jin Moon]], daughter of [[Unification Church]] founder [[Sun Myung Moon]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:15, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

::Her brothers are also good, but she's the Boss these days - at least in America. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

== Lincoln Chafee ==

While he's no longer a member of the Republican party, he served as a Senator as one, and indeed for a long time was the poster boy for RINOs. He's certainly a relevant recent historical example of a RINO, so I've added him back to the article with the note that he left the party in 2007. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 08:19, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

O.K. fine. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] August 17, 2009

== Tsar / Czar ==

We were planning on moving the existing articles, all separate now, into the name place you vacated over an Administrator's redirect. This was all on someone's talk page, last month, I believe. The Admin should have locked the page, but didn't, so no fault on your part, however, what you need to do is go back and create a disambiguation page, however. Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 09:32, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

Sorry for being confused KT, how can I create a disambiguation page. Tsar and Czar are spelled differently. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] August 20, 2009

Let's see:
#[[Tsar]] - Russian ruler
#[[Tzar]] => Redirects to [[tsar]]
#[[Czar]] - U.S. slang cabinet level post

How shall we handle this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:46, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Maybe you can change the titles to [[Tsar (Slavic term)]] and [[Czar (U.S. government)]]. On the Tsar page we can add at the top, ''For the U.S. government political term see: [[Czar]]'', and vice versa. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] September 1 2008

==[[John Lynch]]==

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=New_Hampshire&curid=5169&diff=697584&oldid=697576&rcid=764042 helping] distinguish the governor from the football player. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:43, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==

Congratulations, you've earned the valuable additional privileges of overnight editing and locking the database. The only promotion after that is to become Administrator, and you're close to earning that. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

:Yes, welcome to siteadmin. You've earned it!--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:26, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

I'm speechless Jpatt, Mr. Schlafly. I'll find all the right words later. But to be part of your team is an honor. This is a great new responsibility and look forward to working with all the administrators and having a greater impact on conservapedia. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] September 1 2008

:Your new privileges are very well deserved. Thanks for contributing your insights here!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

:: Welcome to this new responsibility! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 23:04, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] September 1 2008

Aschlafly, I have siteadmin rights, but I'm unable to lock/unlock articles. Is something wrong? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] September 1 2008

:The [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:ListUsers/Siteadmin siteadmin] privilege is different from the '''admin''' privilege. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:40, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you for clearing up the confusion Ed Poor. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] September 1 2008

:The [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:ListUsers/Siteadmin siteadmin] privilege lets you lock the entire database (for emergency use only). Later on, you'll be made one of the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop&limit=100 Administrators] and can lock one page at a time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:44, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Congratulations on earning the powers of Administrator! You can edit locked pages, and lock uploaded images, in addition to your other privileges.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:15, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Many congrats on Admin, Chip! We need a few more great editors around here! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:32, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, this is quite exciting. Even with the title of administrator, my objective is the same as it was when I started here over two years ago. To improve and expand conservapedia, now with more responsibility. Thank you so much. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] September 3 2008

:"Use the mop wisely," as they say at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:00, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you Ed Poor, I'll do my best. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] September 7 2008

== thanks ==

hi chippererson. i can edit now. thanks unless it was tk that sorted it out

Well I have no idea what your talking about, so it must have been TK. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] September 20 2008

== Block of Democrat98 ==

You were correct in asking for "Please recreate your account..." however you did not give him a chance to register again. Simply uncheck "Prevent account creation" and "Automatically block the last IP". --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:08, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

== Very good news posting ==

Very good news posting about the Florida race! I liked your posting a lot ... and learned from it! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

No need to thank me Aschlafly, just doing my job. I expect I'll be posting a lot of 2009/2010 campaign news. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 1:01, October 19, 2009

== Hello? ==

If you still have blocking rights, you may want to take a look at the recent changes. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 10:45, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

I have school and a job Jeffrey. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 6:13, October 20, 2009

:You can just call me Jeff. I didn't mean to be abrupt, you were just the only sysop that I saw on at that time. I didn't mean to appear hostile. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:22, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Christie ==

FYI, in the last week of the campaign, ''after'' the Quinnipiac poll, Christie swing way to the right and appeared with [[Steve Lonegan]]. Corzine even ran ads in the final days saying Christie is "too" conservative.

Christie's running mate had a good, heartfelt meeting with pro-life leaders in the final weeks of the campaign, and it's not clear even if she is really pro-choice anymore.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:11, 4 November 2009 (EST)

Andy, I just didn't like that news headline calling Christie a RINO, when his entire campaign was about cutting spending, cutting taxes, reducing regulation, and law-and-order. I'm very proud of Governor-elect McDonnell and Governor-elect Christie. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] November 4, 2009

:Christie started looking more and more like a conservative near the end of the campaign. Steve Lonegan endorsed and campaigned with him. Chris Smith endorsed him. Corzine even ran ads criticizing Christie as a conservative! So you may be right, and the news headline was premature. But those are goals of news items: be out in front, be timely, and be provocative. Sorry if it was misguided.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 November 2009 (EST)

::Here's something else: the left tried in vain to find something wrong with him[http://www.politickernj.com/alan-steinberg/29123/distortions-christies-record-us-attorney]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:06, 4 November 2009 (EST)

== Terrific news posting ==

Terrific news posting, Chippeterson! You've develop a superb skill at identifying and writing good headlines. It's a valuable talent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:23, 4 December 2009 (EST)

And, again, thanks for another fascinating new headline!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:50, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Andy you flatter me :) No need to thank me, just doing my job. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] December 04, 2009

== Account Recreation ==

The other sysops seem to add ''autoblock disabled'' in parentheses when they ask ''Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial''. This may take care of the [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Reporting an Inconvenience|problems I had]] with this kind of block... [[User:FrankC|ComedyFan]] 20:04, 11 December 2009 (EST)
:Frank, we have had to ban hundreds of poorly formatted names over the past 3 days - mistakes are inevitable. I made a few myself. Please sign your comments with your name FrankC, not ComedyFan. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:05, 11 December 2009 (EST)
::I just want to prevent future errors (and current ones, like [[User:Reclaimamerica]] and [[User:Monkies]]) [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 20:15, 11 December 2009 (EST)

== Francis Collins ==

Hi, Chip. I noticed that you've re-formatted some of my edits to make it more Conservapedia friendly.

Would you mind taking a look at this entry that I've created?

http://conservapedia.com/Francis_Collins

Or can you point in the direction of how to format? I'd love to contribute, but my computer skills aren't too great. [[User:MadShell|MadShell]] 00:53, 13 December 2009 (EST)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for the quick action on that idiot troll, Chip! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:27, 16 December 2009 (EST)

== Great Job on Congress! ==

keep it up and Merry Christmas [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:12, 24 December 2009 (EST)

== Reversion ==
TY, if other complain you can change it back. FYI, I noticed you created an article entitled [[Minutemen project]], we have the article [[Minuteman project]] of similar or exact same group.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 01:40, 30 December 2009 (EST)

I apologize for the mistake Jpatt. -[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] December 30, 2009

== Congratulations! (Part Two) ==

I see Andy has granted you Oversight, Chip...a well-deserved privilege! If you have any questions about it, please ask. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:41, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== New entries are superb! ==

Your new entries about the new congressmen are terrific!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

== 2011 ==

Happy new year!

[[File:Usa new year 2010.jpg|230px]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:27, 5 January 2011 (EST)

==Fiscal Conservative==
Hi! I'm fixing up all the 'wanted categories' and I came across Category: [[Fiscal Conservatives]]. I saw that you deleted it, but 25 articles link to it. It would be easiest if we just restored, or if you want to rename it let's make a new one? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:23, 6 March 2011 (EST)

Sure, go ahead. -[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] March 06, 2011

== [[Template:Officeholder]] ==

Hey chip! Just a reminder - when recording offices as part of the template:officeholder template, if the office holder is not the active office holder, the former parameter should be set to "y", not "n". Thanks!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:07, 13 March 2011 (EDT)

I do that on purpose because when someone serves as a Representative or some other office, they're given that title for life. -[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] March 14, 2011

:Hmm - they are given the title for life, but I wonder if it's not incorrect to say "former representative" ... for example, George Bush would still be President Bush, but would it be incorrect to describe him as the "former President of the United States"? If so, I should remove the "former" from the template.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:13, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
::After a little bit of research, I believe the answer is no - because we're not using the description as a title. So it's not as if we're saying "Former Representative Doe" (which would be incorrect) - we're saying "John Doe - Former Representative of ...", but if I am mistaken do let me know. --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:17, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

== Country ==

Any suggestion of country to illustrate with images? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 18:50, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Causes of atheism

2011-10-04T03:46:33Z

MaxFletcher: /* Surely there is one more reason? */

It is morally superior to attempt to do the right thing from the begining rather than live with the assumption that your sins will be forgiven. {{unsigned|Anyprophet}}
:::::The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Hmm... this article is better than it used to be, it's more readable and seems more relevant. Ok Conservative. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Surely there is one more reason? ==
There is one major (possible) cause of atheism missing from this page, and it is stated on the main page for atheism (under "Atheism and Why do Atheists State They Disbelieve?"), it goes like this:
The atheist has been either been presented with evidence against or no evidence for the existence of God.
Many prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins et al) claim this is why they don't believe, and is clearly a cause of atheism.

please unlock this page or add this reason.

:What, you expect that Ken - sorry, [[User:Conservative]] - is going to unlock a page he's laid his holy atheist-repelling touch on? Please, read the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]. Especially the ones about how admins have to treat all editors with respect, rather than bullying them. Alternatively, and preferably, get yourself away from this nest of [[User:Conservative|lunatics]]. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::You didn't provide a convincing case. Plus, you provided no proof and evidence that atheism is true. In addition, moral depravity [[Atheism and morality|is still a good reason to list first.]] The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] Also, [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:15, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Your argument is circular: Moral Depravity causes atheism and because of atheism people become morally depraved. Sort of "Chicken and the egg", no? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:25, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I see that Max, Conservapedia's atheist apologist has shown up. The prophet Jeremiah: "The heart is deceitfully wicked above all things. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). Second, a deceitful heart can become even more depraved. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:37, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Calling you out on your poor scholarship =/= atheist apologist. You show me where i have been an apologist for atheist behavior or retract. I am trying to make CP better but looking more and more like a wasted effort. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

== In Need of Editing ==
Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies. In addition, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Therefore, moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.

This line strikes me as having multiple flaws. First of all, if you follow the link to the Atheism page, nowhere does it cite a 'demonstration' or 'study' that demonstrates moral depravity in the atheist community throughout history. As such, the only real 'support' here are Biblical quotes. These quotes should be cited here instead of linked externally. The last line is also laughable: Therefore, (what is there that's been shown? 3 Biblical quotes?) moral depravity is certainly (such a strong word) one of the prime causes of atheism. This entire sentence is inferred by the article writer with no external referencing and, frankly, doesn't make much sense.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 18:51, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== I feel like I need to say something ==
*The article seems to present only causes based on the assumption that atheism is an incorrect position. It should really present some more neutral causes as well. Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 15:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, really. Maybe some people just don't believe in God? Is that so unreasonable?

>> Yes, it's unreasonable to assume that atheism does not just happen. Scientific evidence and logical reasoning are not sufficient to give rise to atheism. Some event must have caused atheism such as; abusive upbringing, use of antidepressants, partial insanity, certain additives and toxins in food such at BT, ERDA, amoxicilin and other substances known to contribute to improper executive function of the human brain.

These are all neutral cases that show the causation of atheism and prove it is a consequence of mental deficiency.

:No, those are things you say cause atheism. Without documentation, they prove nothing. Why do you seem to have so much trouble accepting the idea that some people, as I do, honestly believe God does not exist? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

== unlock this article ==

unlock this article so I can add a template to it -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Added another reason ==
Personal Tragedy. There are some who have forsaken, quit, or otherwise stopped believing in any religion due to the loss of a loved one, or being crippled or something equally bad.

== Section to add to entry ==

I request that the entry be unlocked to be able to add another section: "Acculturation". Clearly, acculturation is a major cause of atheism. For example, the overwhelming majority of Japanese people do not believe in Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in Kami, an animist pantheon. Likewise, many times more Indians than the entire population of the US, are atheistic in regards to Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in the Hindu pantheon. This is due to the culture within which these people were raised, more than any other factor. [[User:Bricology|Bricology]] 15:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
:::I can look to find some sources I like as far as "acculturation". Plus, I could include in the section how bad company corrupts good morals and cite applicable cases. For example, the [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
[[Logical Necessity]]

The question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence of such a being. Some profound remarks were made on this by J. N. Findlay in his article (‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ (Findlay 1949). The heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus ‘There is one and only one God’ would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held, is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The trouble is how to see what this could be.

It might be replied that there are non-trivial necessary existential propositions in mathematics, such as ‘There are infinitely many primes’ which implies of course ‘the number 7 exists’. (We can ignore the unhelpful ‘Something exists’ which is allowed by standard first order logic purely for convenience as few would need to apply logic to discourse about an empty universe for which in any case there are separate rules for determining validity or otherwise.) It is well known that Frege in his Foundations of Arithmetic claimed to reduce arithmetic to logic. However in effect he was using a free logic without ontological commitment. Claims to reduce set theory (and so analysis) to logic are of course even more problematic. Would it help towards an adequate conception of God if we said that God has the sort of existence or non-existence that prime numbers have? One might say ‘not much’. In any case it is dangerous to talk of types of existence because it treats existence as though it was a property. At the time that he wrote his article Findlay was following the logical positivist line that logic and mathematics are alike tautologous. In the case of mathematics this can be seriously questioned. Also most theists would say that prime numbers are too abstract to be compared to God, though perhaps not John Leslie who has argued that God is a principle that brings value into existence (Leslie 1979 and 1989). We are still left with Findlay's challenge as to what a conception of God as a necessary being could be.

One thing that will not differentiate the theist from the atheist is to say that God, if he exists, is necessary in the sense of not being dependent on anything else for his existence. The atheist will say that the universe fits this bill because the universe contains everything that there is and so is not caused by anything else. It is indeed hard to see what an adequate conception of God and his necessary existence could be. For the purposes of this article, let us explore what the relations and lack of relations between atheism and agnosticism could be. Here we shall neglect the requirement of necessary existence and in a later section we shall consider the case of a posteriori arguments for the existence of a mind-like creator of the universe. Of course without the requirement of necessity it raises the intelligent child's question ‘Who made God?’ Still, this might be regarded as inevitable but excusable in an a posteriori argument in which the hypothesis of a purposive creator is put forward and claimed to be justified much in the manner of any scientific hypothesis.

== Really? ==

I just finished reading this article and, really? I'm sorry, but I thought this was Conservapedia, not Encyclopedia Dramatica. I don't see the skeptic wiki calling us "morally depraved", or stupid for believing in God, so why should we do it to them? Also all the sources are biased, and based on personal opinion, making them utterly pointless. - [[User:Mager]]
::::The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:You've made some apparently helpful contributions, but know that we don't respond kindly to these kinds of accusations. You're awfully new here to have discovered that there is a vandal site already. If you wish to deny that atheism leaves a person with no rational basis for morality, maybe Wikipedia would be better for you. If you're willing to accept the truth, and get over the shock of being exposed to harsh truth for the first time, then you're welcome to stay here and contribute. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Despite your status as moderator, JacobB, I think Mager has a very valid point here. First, you list Moral Depravity as a cause of atheism, and all of the reasoning from you last post showed moral depravity as a result of atheism. Secondly, the Moral Depravity argument seems only to apply to Christian morals. While atheists may not adhere to strict Christian morals, many of their personal beliefs create a vast overlap in the vast field of ethics. For example, almost all atheists believe it is wrong to kill, based on the human emotion of empathy. Atheists don't want to be killed, so they won't kill others. You may point to instances of violence or mass murder by atheists, but mental problems that lead people to commit atrocious acts of violence exist in all groups of people, regardless of belief system. Take for example the horrible crimes perpetrated by the Spanish dictator Franco. Franco was a staunch Catholic fighting against the atheistic communists. Franco killed thousands, despite his Christian principles. Thus, I propose that while atheists may not abide by Christian morals, almost all people live under many of the same morals, such as not killing or harming others, no matter what system of beliefs they subscribe to.

::Also, this is a talk page. Mager shared a good point, and there is no reason to fire back at him with sarcastic remarks questioning his loyalties to this online encyclopedia. Also, I'm not sure how the age of Mager's account correlates to him being able to find possible errors or things to improve on. Finally, I would like to note that you, Jacob, did nothing to respond to Mager's critiques. Maybe Conservapedia will be able to gain more popularity if the "Talk" page becomes a dialogue in which ideas are tested and questioned rather than a place of dogma. Would you like me to defend myself from being blocked in advance? I'm accusing you of being dogmatic because you make no reference to Mager's points in your response. You solely state that the fact that moral depravity and atheism are inherently linked is true, and any suggestion to the contrary is false. Instead of blocking me, please consider responding to Mager's or my arguments to promote dialogue on the "Talk" page. -AlexanderMonroe
:::::The atheist the Marque De Sade had no feelings of empathy. Secondly, I don't think you convincingly showed that mere feelings (which certainly can include mere sentimentality ) is something you can build morality on. Stalin had feelings. Unfortunately, his feelings often involved lust for power and envy. Third, the atheists certainly don't have a good track record when it comes to charity and mass murder. Apparently, there are a lot of hard hearted atheists and the feelings thing isn't cutting the mustard. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::My whole point is that empathy for most atheists does create a certain level of morality. We can take turns taking pot shots at the other side by naming dictators or murderers who were aligned with the other side's belief system, but in reality most people, in general, are not murderers or criminals. I'm not sure I can convince you that empathy can be an adequate replacement for Christian morality without converting you to atheism. I was raised Catholic under Christian morals. I then reasoned myselfto atheism. I believe that the morals and punishments of Christianity do not bind me, but my actions as a person have not changed much. I realize that if I kill someone, there are reprecussions. I realize that there are reprecussions to even a failure to reciprocate an act of kindness. Based on empathizing with others and understanding the real world consequences of my actions, I have established a pattern of behavior that, for the most part, fits into your set of morals.
::::::::::Why is the per capita donations to charity even when church donations are not counted lower for atheists? Secondly, research shows that atheists exposed to Christianity donate higher than atheists who have not been exposed to Christianiy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:15, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ Christians Give more to Charity than Atheists] by Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] - [[YouTube]] video [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:23, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Causes of atheism

2011-10-04T03:46:09Z

MaxFletcher: /* Surely there is one more reason? */ You show me where i have been an apologist for atheist behavior or retract.

It is morally superior to attempt to do the right thing from the begining rather than live with the assumption that your sins will be forgiven. {{unsigned|Anyprophet}}
:::::The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Hmm... this article is better than it used to be, it's more readable and seems more relevant. Ok Conservative. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Surely there is one more reason? ==
There is one major (possible) cause of atheism missing from this page, and it is stated on the main page for atheism (under "Atheism and Why do Atheists State They Disbelieve?"), it goes like this:
The atheist has been either been presented with evidence against or no evidence for the existence of God.
Many prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins et al) claim this is why they don't believe, and is clearly a cause of atheism.

please unlock this page or add this reason.

:What, you expect that Ken - sorry, [[User:Conservative]] - is going to unlock a page he's laid his holy atheist-repelling touch on? Please, read the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]. Especially the ones about how admins have to treat all editors with respect, rather than bullying them. Alternatively, and preferably, get yourself away from this nest of [[User:Conservative|lunatics]]. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::You didn't provide a convincing case. Plus, you provided no proof and evidence that atheism is true. In addition, moral depravity [[Atheism and morality|is still a good reason to list first.]] The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] Also, [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:15, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Your argument is circular: Moral Depravity causes atheism and because of atheism people become morally depraved. Sort of "Chicken and the egg", no? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:25, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I see that Max, Conservapedia's atheist apologist has shown up. The prophet Jeremiah: "The heart is deceitfully wicked above all things. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). Second, a deceitful heart can become even more depraved. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:37, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Calling you out on your poor scholarship =/= atheist apologist. You show me where i have been an apologist for atheist behavior or retract. I am trying to make CP better but looking more and more like a wasted effort.

== In Need of Editing ==
Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies. In addition, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Therefore, moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.

This line strikes me as having multiple flaws. First of all, if you follow the link to the Atheism page, nowhere does it cite a 'demonstration' or 'study' that demonstrates moral depravity in the atheist community throughout history. As such, the only real 'support' here are Biblical quotes. These quotes should be cited here instead of linked externally. The last line is also laughable: Therefore, (what is there that's been shown? 3 Biblical quotes?) moral depravity is certainly (such a strong word) one of the prime causes of atheism. This entire sentence is inferred by the article writer with no external referencing and, frankly, doesn't make much sense.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 18:51, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== I feel like I need to say something ==
*The article seems to present only causes based on the assumption that atheism is an incorrect position. It should really present some more neutral causes as well. Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 15:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, really. Maybe some people just don't believe in God? Is that so unreasonable?

>> Yes, it's unreasonable to assume that atheism does not just happen. Scientific evidence and logical reasoning are not sufficient to give rise to atheism. Some event must have caused atheism such as; abusive upbringing, use of antidepressants, partial insanity, certain additives and toxins in food such at BT, ERDA, amoxicilin and other substances known to contribute to improper executive function of the human brain.

These are all neutral cases that show the causation of atheism and prove it is a consequence of mental deficiency.

:No, those are things you say cause atheism. Without documentation, they prove nothing. Why do you seem to have so much trouble accepting the idea that some people, as I do, honestly believe God does not exist? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

== unlock this article ==

unlock this article so I can add a template to it -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Added another reason ==
Personal Tragedy. There are some who have forsaken, quit, or otherwise stopped believing in any religion due to the loss of a loved one, or being crippled or something equally bad.

== Section to add to entry ==

I request that the entry be unlocked to be able to add another section: "Acculturation". Clearly, acculturation is a major cause of atheism. For example, the overwhelming majority of Japanese people do not believe in Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in Kami, an animist pantheon. Likewise, many times more Indians than the entire population of the US, are atheistic in regards to Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in the Hindu pantheon. This is due to the culture within which these people were raised, more than any other factor. [[User:Bricology|Bricology]] 15:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
:::I can look to find some sources I like as far as "acculturation". Plus, I could include in the section how bad company corrupts good morals and cite applicable cases. For example, the [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
[[Logical Necessity]]

The question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence of such a being. Some profound remarks were made on this by J. N. Findlay in his article (‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ (Findlay 1949). The heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus ‘There is one and only one God’ would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held, is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The trouble is how to see what this could be.

It might be replied that there are non-trivial necessary existential propositions in mathematics, such as ‘There are infinitely many primes’ which implies of course ‘the number 7 exists’. (We can ignore the unhelpful ‘Something exists’ which is allowed by standard first order logic purely for convenience as few would need to apply logic to discourse about an empty universe for which in any case there are separate rules for determining validity or otherwise.) It is well known that Frege in his Foundations of Arithmetic claimed to reduce arithmetic to logic. However in effect he was using a free logic without ontological commitment. Claims to reduce set theory (and so analysis) to logic are of course even more problematic. Would it help towards an adequate conception of God if we said that God has the sort of existence or non-existence that prime numbers have? One might say ‘not much’. In any case it is dangerous to talk of types of existence because it treats existence as though it was a property. At the time that he wrote his article Findlay was following the logical positivist line that logic and mathematics are alike tautologous. In the case of mathematics this can be seriously questioned. Also most theists would say that prime numbers are too abstract to be compared to God, though perhaps not John Leslie who has argued that God is a principle that brings value into existence (Leslie 1979 and 1989). We are still left with Findlay's challenge as to what a conception of God as a necessary being could be.

One thing that will not differentiate the theist from the atheist is to say that God, if he exists, is necessary in the sense of not being dependent on anything else for his existence. The atheist will say that the universe fits this bill because the universe contains everything that there is and so is not caused by anything else. It is indeed hard to see what an adequate conception of God and his necessary existence could be. For the purposes of this article, let us explore what the relations and lack of relations between atheism and agnosticism could be. Here we shall neglect the requirement of necessary existence and in a later section we shall consider the case of a posteriori arguments for the existence of a mind-like creator of the universe. Of course without the requirement of necessity it raises the intelligent child's question ‘Who made God?’ Still, this might be regarded as inevitable but excusable in an a posteriori argument in which the hypothesis of a purposive creator is put forward and claimed to be justified much in the manner of any scientific hypothesis.

== Really? ==

I just finished reading this article and, really? I'm sorry, but I thought this was Conservapedia, not Encyclopedia Dramatica. I don't see the skeptic wiki calling us "morally depraved", or stupid for believing in God, so why should we do it to them? Also all the sources are biased, and based on personal opinion, making them utterly pointless. - [[User:Mager]]
::::The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:You've made some apparently helpful contributions, but know that we don't respond kindly to these kinds of accusations. You're awfully new here to have discovered that there is a vandal site already. If you wish to deny that atheism leaves a person with no rational basis for morality, maybe Wikipedia would be better for you. If you're willing to accept the truth, and get over the shock of being exposed to harsh truth for the first time, then you're welcome to stay here and contribute. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Despite your status as moderator, JacobB, I think Mager has a very valid point here. First, you list Moral Depravity as a cause of atheism, and all of the reasoning from you last post showed moral depravity as a result of atheism. Secondly, the Moral Depravity argument seems only to apply to Christian morals. While atheists may not adhere to strict Christian morals, many of their personal beliefs create a vast overlap in the vast field of ethics. For example, almost all atheists believe it is wrong to kill, based on the human emotion of empathy. Atheists don't want to be killed, so they won't kill others. You may point to instances of violence or mass murder by atheists, but mental problems that lead people to commit atrocious acts of violence exist in all groups of people, regardless of belief system. Take for example the horrible crimes perpetrated by the Spanish dictator Franco. Franco was a staunch Catholic fighting against the atheistic communists. Franco killed thousands, despite his Christian principles. Thus, I propose that while atheists may not abide by Christian morals, almost all people live under many of the same morals, such as not killing or harming others, no matter what system of beliefs they subscribe to.

::Also, this is a talk page. Mager shared a good point, and there is no reason to fire back at him with sarcastic remarks questioning his loyalties to this online encyclopedia. Also, I'm not sure how the age of Mager's account correlates to him being able to find possible errors or things to improve on. Finally, I would like to note that you, Jacob, did nothing to respond to Mager's critiques. Maybe Conservapedia will be able to gain more popularity if the "Talk" page becomes a dialogue in which ideas are tested and questioned rather than a place of dogma. Would you like me to defend myself from being blocked in advance? I'm accusing you of being dogmatic because you make no reference to Mager's points in your response. You solely state that the fact that moral depravity and atheism are inherently linked is true, and any suggestion to the contrary is false. Instead of blocking me, please consider responding to Mager's or my arguments to promote dialogue on the "Talk" page. -AlexanderMonroe
:::::The atheist the Marque De Sade had no feelings of empathy. Secondly, I don't think you convincingly showed that mere feelings (which certainly can include mere sentimentality ) is something you can build morality on. Stalin had feelings. Unfortunately, his feelings often involved lust for power and envy. Third, the atheists certainly don't have a good track record when it comes to charity and mass murder. Apparently, there are a lot of hard hearted atheists and the feelings thing isn't cutting the mustard. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::My whole point is that empathy for most atheists does create a certain level of morality. We can take turns taking pot shots at the other side by naming dictators or murderers who were aligned with the other side's belief system, but in reality most people, in general, are not murderers or criminals. I'm not sure I can convince you that empathy can be an adequate replacement for Christian morality without converting you to atheism. I was raised Catholic under Christian morals. I then reasoned myselfto atheism. I believe that the morals and punishments of Christianity do not bind me, but my actions as a person have not changed much. I realize that if I kill someone, there are reprecussions. I realize that there are reprecussions to even a failure to reciprocate an act of kindness. Based on empathizing with others and understanding the real world consequences of my actions, I have established a pattern of behavior that, for the most part, fits into your set of morals.
::::::::::Why is the per capita donations to charity even when church donations are not counted lower for atheists? Secondly, research shows that atheists exposed to Christianity donate higher than atheists who have not been exposed to Christianiy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:15, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ Christians Give more to Charity than Atheists] by Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] - [[YouTube]] video [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:23, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Causes of atheism

2011-10-04T01:25:07Z

MaxFletcher: /* Surely there is one more reason? */ Your argument is circular

It is morally superior to attempt to do the right thing from the begining rather than live with the assumption that your sins will be forgiven. {{unsigned|Anyprophet}}
:::::The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Hmm... this article is better than it used to be, it's more readable and seems more relevant. Ok Conservative. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Surely there is one more reason? ==
There is one major (possible) cause of atheism missing from this page, and it is stated on the main page for atheism (under "Atheism and Why do Atheists State They Disbelieve?"), it goes like this:
The atheist has been either been presented with evidence against or no evidence for the existence of God.
Many prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins et al) claim this is why they don't believe, and is clearly a cause of atheism.

please unlock this page or add this reason.

:What, you expect that Ken - sorry, [[User:Conservative]] - is going to unlock a page he's laid his holy atheist-repelling touch on? Please, read the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]. Especially the ones about how admins have to treat all editors with respect, rather than bullying them. Alternatively, and preferably, get yourself away from this nest of [[User:Conservative|lunatics]]. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::You didn't provide a convincing case. Plus, you provided no proof and evidence that atheism is true. In addition, moral depravity [[Atheism and morality|is still a good reason to list first.]] The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] Also, [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:15, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Your argument is circular: Moral Depravity causes atheism and because of atheism people become morally depraved. Sort of "Chicken and the egg", no? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:25, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

== In Need of Editing ==
Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies. In addition, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Therefore, moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.

This line strikes me as having multiple flaws. First of all, if you follow the link to the Atheism page, nowhere does it cite a 'demonstration' or 'study' that demonstrates moral depravity in the atheist community throughout history. As such, the only real 'support' here are Biblical quotes. These quotes should be cited here instead of linked externally. The last line is also laughable: Therefore, (what is there that's been shown? 3 Biblical quotes?) moral depravity is certainly (such a strong word) one of the prime causes of atheism. This entire sentence is inferred by the article writer with no external referencing and, frankly, doesn't make much sense.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 18:51, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== I feel like I need to say something ==
*The article seems to present only causes based on the assumption that atheism is an incorrect position. It should really present some more neutral causes as well. Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 15:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, really. Maybe some people just don't believe in God? Is that so unreasonable?

>> Yes, it's unreasonable to assume that atheism does not just happen. Scientific evidence and logical reasoning are not sufficient to give rise to atheism. Some event must have caused atheism such as; abusive upbringing, use of antidepressants, partial insanity, certain additives and toxins in food such at BT, ERDA, amoxicilin and other substances known to contribute to improper executive function of the human brain.

These are all neutral cases that show the causation of atheism and prove it is a consequence of mental deficiency.

:No, those are things you say cause atheism. Without documentation, they prove nothing. Why do you seem to have so much trouble accepting the idea that some people, as I do, honestly believe God does not exist? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

== unlock this article ==

unlock this article so I can add a template to it -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Added another reason ==
Personal Tragedy. There are some who have forsaken, quit, or otherwise stopped believing in any religion due to the loss of a loved one, or being crippled or something equally bad.

== Section to add to entry ==

I request that the entry be unlocked to be able to add another section: "Acculturation". Clearly, acculturation is a major cause of atheism. For example, the overwhelming majority of Japanese people do not believe in Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in Kami, an animist pantheon. Likewise, many times more Indians than the entire population of the US, are atheistic in regards to Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in the Hindu pantheon. This is due to the culture within which these people were raised, more than any other factor. [[User:Bricology|Bricology]] 15:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
:::I can look to find some sources I like as far as "acculturation". Plus, I could include in the section how bad company corrupts good morals and cite applicable cases. For example, the [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
[[Logical Necessity]]

The question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence of such a being. Some profound remarks were made on this by J. N. Findlay in his article (‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ (Findlay 1949). The heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus ‘There is one and only one God’ would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held, is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The trouble is how to see what this could be.

It might be replied that there are non-trivial necessary existential propositions in mathematics, such as ‘There are infinitely many primes’ which implies of course ‘the number 7 exists’. (We can ignore the unhelpful ‘Something exists’ which is allowed by standard first order logic purely for convenience as few would need to apply logic to discourse about an empty universe for which in any case there are separate rules for determining validity or otherwise.) It is well known that Frege in his Foundations of Arithmetic claimed to reduce arithmetic to logic. However in effect he was using a free logic without ontological commitment. Claims to reduce set theory (and so analysis) to logic are of course even more problematic. Would it help towards an adequate conception of God if we said that God has the sort of existence or non-existence that prime numbers have? One might say ‘not much’. In any case it is dangerous to talk of types of existence because it treats existence as though it was a property. At the time that he wrote his article Findlay was following the logical positivist line that logic and mathematics are alike tautologous. In the case of mathematics this can be seriously questioned. Also most theists would say that prime numbers are too abstract to be compared to God, though perhaps not John Leslie who has argued that God is a principle that brings value into existence (Leslie 1979 and 1989). We are still left with Findlay's challenge as to what a conception of God as a necessary being could be.

One thing that will not differentiate the theist from the atheist is to say that God, if he exists, is necessary in the sense of not being dependent on anything else for his existence. The atheist will say that the universe fits this bill because the universe contains everything that there is and so is not caused by anything else. It is indeed hard to see what an adequate conception of God and his necessary existence could be. For the purposes of this article, let us explore what the relations and lack of relations between atheism and agnosticism could be. Here we shall neglect the requirement of necessary existence and in a later section we shall consider the case of a posteriori arguments for the existence of a mind-like creator of the universe. Of course without the requirement of necessity it raises the intelligent child's question ‘Who made God?’ Still, this might be regarded as inevitable but excusable in an a posteriori argument in which the hypothesis of a purposive creator is put forward and claimed to be justified much in the manner of any scientific hypothesis.

== Really? ==

I just finished reading this article and, really? I'm sorry, but I thought this was Conservapedia, not Encyclopedia Dramatica. I don't see the skeptic wiki calling us "morally depraved", or stupid for believing in God, so why should we do it to them? Also all the sources are biased, and based on personal opinion, making them utterly pointless. - [[User:Mager]]
::::The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:You've made some apparently helpful contributions, but know that we don't respond kindly to these kinds of accusations. You're awfully new here to have discovered that there is a vandal site already. If you wish to deny that atheism leaves a person with no rational basis for morality, maybe Wikipedia would be better for you. If you're willing to accept the truth, and get over the shock of being exposed to harsh truth for the first time, then you're welcome to stay here and contribute. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Despite your status as moderator, JacobB, I think Mager has a very valid point here. First, you list Moral Depravity as a cause of atheism, and all of the reasoning from you last post showed moral depravity as a result of atheism. Secondly, the Moral Depravity argument seems only to apply to Christian morals. While atheists may not adhere to strict Christian morals, many of their personal beliefs create a vast overlap in the vast field of ethics. For example, almost all atheists believe it is wrong to kill, based on the human emotion of empathy. Atheists don't want to be killed, so they won't kill others. You may point to instances of violence or mass murder by atheists, but mental problems that lead people to commit atrocious acts of violence exist in all groups of people, regardless of belief system. Take for example the horrible crimes perpetrated by the Spanish dictator Franco. Franco was a staunch Catholic fighting against the atheistic communists. Franco killed thousands, despite his Christian principles. Thus, I propose that while atheists may not abide by Christian morals, almost all people live under many of the same morals, such as not killing or harming others, no matter what system of beliefs they subscribe to.

::Also, this is a talk page. Mager shared a good point, and there is no reason to fire back at him with sarcastic remarks questioning his loyalties to this online encyclopedia. Also, I'm not sure how the age of Mager's account correlates to him being able to find possible errors or things to improve on. Finally, I would like to note that you, Jacob, did nothing to respond to Mager's critiques. Maybe Conservapedia will be able to gain more popularity if the "Talk" page becomes a dialogue in which ideas are tested and questioned rather than a place of dogma. Would you like me to defend myself from being blocked in advance? I'm accusing you of being dogmatic because you make no reference to Mager's points in your response. You solely state that the fact that moral depravity and atheism are inherently linked is true, and any suggestion to the contrary is false. Instead of blocking me, please consider responding to Mager's or my arguments to promote dialogue on the "Talk" page. -AlexanderMonroe
:::::The atheist the Marque De Sade had no feelings of empathy. Secondly, I don't think you convincingly showed that mere feelings (which certainly can include mere sentimentality ) is something you can build morality on. Stalin had feelings. Unfortunately, his feelings often involved lust for power and envy. Third, the atheists certainly don't have a good track record when it comes to charity and mass murder. Apparently, there are a lot of hard hearted atheists and the feelings thing isn't cutting the mustard. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::My whole point is that empathy for most atheists does create a certain level of morality. We can take turns taking pot shots at the other side by naming dictators or murderers who were aligned with the other side's belief system, but in reality most people, in general, are not murderers or criminals. I'm not sure I can convince you that empathy can be an adequate replacement for Christian morality without converting you to atheism. I was raised Catholic under Christian morals. I then reasoned myselfto atheism. I believe that the morals and punishments of Christianity do not bind me, but my actions as a person have not changed much. I realize that if I kill someone, there are reprecussions. I realize that there are reprecussions to even a failure to reciprocate an act of kindness. Based on empathizing with others and understanding the real world consequences of my actions, I have established a pattern of behavior that, for the most part, fits into your set of morals.
::::::::::Why is the per capita donations to charity even when church donations are not counted lower for atheists? Secondly, research shows that atheists exposed to Christianity donate higher than atheists who have not been exposed to Christianiy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:15, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ Christians Give more to Charity than Atheists] by Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] - [[YouTube]] video [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:23, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-30T04:07:32Z

MaxFletcher: /* The atheism blues */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==

I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]]. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==

Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:

1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].

2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic.

3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being "demonic" offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair "exorcist" commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights.

Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was "demonic" I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.

4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past.

5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics.

6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]].

7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says "Atheism is true because I say so" or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''
:Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]].
:Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in "Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)...."?
:*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''
:I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=888699]
:*''suggested a blocking review board ''
:You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have.
:*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''
:And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE]. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''
:::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it.
:::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.
:::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rude and insulting behaviour ==

Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The same user has now taken to insulting me and questioning MY faith, simply becaue I disagree with him about the best way to oppose evolutionism, and nobody else seems to be making any attempts to curtail his offensive behaviour. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''" (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==
Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is "sysops playing the bully", yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.
:::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception.
:::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.
:::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou & User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the "thin skinned" comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents.
:::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.
:::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say "Thank you, we're not interested," and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying "Goodbye" and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking "no" for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' "our" is also "me" because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,''
::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==a perspective from a pianist==
MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.

But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only "original" content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical "parody" pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop "community," if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.

My whole time here, I've heard it argued, "well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism." In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call "the best of the public," and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.

My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them "faux" answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not "serious accusations" these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a "dig at conservative" i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me "demonic" at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was "Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind." Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is
:'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''
But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==And end to this==

Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, "the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my "castle" and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of "pesterfesting".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you
::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...
::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I found out by checking the block log, which you can find by going to TracyS' userpage and clicking "View full log". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:02, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Ah yes, so I see. Thanks for that. I also notice a rather unsavory comment in there from RobS regarding another sysop. This is starting to look very unsatisfactory. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== User:Conservative ==

I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.

Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.

I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.

A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc.

User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]] Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.

Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The Conservapedian Iduan has expressed some interest in helping refine Conservapedia's blocking policy. He is currently on a summer vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I sent an email to Iduan to find out when his vacation is over. I expect to receive a reply within 2-7 days. In the meantime, people who are going to be on the blocking policy refinement panel may want to look at these two pages: [[User:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] and [[User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:17, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::The panel is convening on 8/17/11: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:59, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

=== A question for the ''ayes'' ===
Would you have voted for '''deleting''' the archives, too? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:04, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes. While there might have been some good points in those discussions, the vast majority was name-calling by troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets. Keeping it around gives a false impression of the site, which is exactly what the troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets want. If any of the discussion in those archives was worthwhile, I'm sure it'll be brought up again in a more orderly fashion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
*it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
*To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative!
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.
*And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar: A few comments: 1) Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) 2) Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth 3) Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy 4) At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive to which I believe could increase its viewership. By the way, how many websites have you considerably added traffic to? My guess is none so your "expert" opinion has little weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:# ''Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.)'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy'' That may be a very promising development...
:# ''At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership.'' In the fast moving world of the internet, such intricate plans are of relatively little value.
:By the way: could you show me to a talk page where you successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? Thanks
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, who said my plan was intricate? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite to the panel so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall ==

A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

I am sending an email to [[User:Iduan]] to determine when he is returning from his vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Just returned; first: sleep; then: back to business.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have blocking rights. May I join?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 17:10, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I added you to list. I don't think there will be any objections to me doing so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==Response to Karajou==
I told Andy yesterday I would respond to these baseless charges today, but spent the better part of the last nine hours blocked after User:Conservative flip-flopped, reverted himself, and unblocked me (I'll accept your apology later, User:Conservative, for inconveniencing me). But to Mr. Karajou: you seem to be of the opinion that,
:'''A little leven leveneth the whole lump.'''
That would be true, if Conservapedia were a monolith, requiring ideological conformity. But it's not, and never has been. Let's not forget the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares,
:'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares#Narrative An enemy hath done this]. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.''' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:29, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Here is the evidence that I am aware of:

1. Both RobS and TracyS edited from the same IP address. After Karajou pointed this out, I personally confirmed this matter.

2. Both were somewhat obsessed with my talk page design in an annoying way despite the fact that Conservapedia says a user's talk page is his/her castle. At the time, I had a system for leaving messages to me. I have since closes my talk page for leaving messages due to RobS and his atheist pals use of pestering tactics.

3. Both were dishonest. For example, RobS claiming he referred to me as demonic at Conservapedia which he never did as he knows the charge was baseless plus he didn't have the guts to do this at Conservapedia, but instead chose to do this at an atheist gutter website that is filled with obscenity and gossip. TracyS claimed he/she was not trying to annoy me about my talk despite using language purposely meant to annoy.

4. Both were annoying and needlessly argumentative.

5. Karajou claims there were multiple sockpuppets of RobS, but I have not personally investigated this matter.

RobS is still an egotist and has learned nothing. It would be a big mistake at this time to give him back his Sysop/Admin rights. He would just foment a lot of useless drama and nonsense. Conservapedia doesn't need RobS the egotist to change its blocking policy and a panel of which he is not a part to refine its blocking policy is far better suited to the task. I invited people to take part in such a panel and some have accepted my invitation to take part in the panel.

I did block RobS earlier for a short spell due to him being disruptive to me posting a notice in this room that would be more constructive than much of the current content which I archived. However, with another Sysops's assistance I was able to send out invitations to the appropriate parties so the notice at the community portal was no longer needed so I unblocked RobS and de-archived the material. Given his past behavior, I see no reason to apologize for any inconvenience this caused RobS.

I will now let RobS give his empty sales pitch on how his desysoping was all a misunderstanding and a mistake on Aschlafly's part. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative, I told Andy yesterday I would respond here, but was prevented by you and the whole day was wasted. Also, I see the whole page & its Archives have been vandalized, as well as other users private user space, so I hesitate in wasting anymore time here. I will however, respond with this:
:'''"pesterfesting"''': this is the term User:Conservative uses for what is commonly refereed to in the outside world as '''"[[Advocacy]]"'''. An advocate is a person who acts on behalf of others who are incapable, or have been prevented from acting on their own behalf. Two examples of advocates would be, (1) [[Andrew Schlafly]], noted attorney, and (2) [[Jesus Christ]], [[savior]] of the [[planet]]. Advocacy is very common in the world of wikis, but I can see where you would have difficultly with the idea. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:57, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, in retrospect, I believe your "pesterfesting" was just a petty and narcissistic post TK power grab which tried to show others that you were the "big man on campus". Second, I am sorry to hear that you couldn't find other things to do besides edit Conservapedia and that your whole day was wasted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun and can be found [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Android App? ==

Does anyone have the link to the android app? I am unable to find it for some strange reason. [[User:JacobSmith|JacobSmith]] 22:05, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am an Android user. Nothing exists and was likely a person having fun with lies.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

== My Testimony ==

I was a liberal atheist. About two weeks ago, I was talking to a Conservative friend of mine and she pointed me to the site conservapedia.com. So I came here and read a few articles. Then read a few more. Then when I noticed registration was open, I signed up, but didn't contribute right away, but I kept reading. I read [[Christian apologetics]], [[Counterexamples to Evolution]], [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]] and some wonderful essays too numerous to list. While reading, I felt...something. Something I haven't felt since I was a child. Yesterday, Sunday Morning, I did something I haven't done in nearly 30 years: I went to church. It was wonderful and I do believe I felt the Holy Spirit. I don't believe I deserve to call myself a Christian yet, but I'm looking forward to next Sunday. :-) Thank you all. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 13:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Summer Paper Gone Bad ==

Summer is drawing to a close and school is beginning again. I have decided to write my essay on the origin of the moon, citing Conservapedia several times. When my teacher (this is a public school) gave me my paper back with the grade an all, he gave me a 62. In addition, he gave me a "good talking to" on not using Wikipedia. I tried to explain him that Conservapedia is different, he just wouldn't listen! He gave me the opportunity to do the paper again using different sources. I don't want to use different sources, because they are most often plagued with bias. My question is simple- how do we separate ourselves from Wikipedia to the general public, and how to we improve our reputation? --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 17:13, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:Wikis are not normally considered good sources for research as they are generally open and can be edited by anyone. And any decent teacher (public school or not) probably won't accept an encyclopedia of any kind (hard copy or online) as a source for a research paper, as they normally want the student to actually do some research. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:06, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::William, the good news is you were docked points for your sources and not for content. That implies that your teacher has an open mind. I'd suggest Answers in Genesis, A Storehouse of Knowledge, Creation Ministries International or look at some of Ray Comfort's books. Of course, these sources are all the work of man and are therefore always biased and flawed. For the truth, you'll want to turn to the Bible. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 19:57, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

== An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly ==

I was [[User:WalterS]] and made an inappropriate comment several months ago. Then two days ago I signed up again under the name JefferyA and tried to make some contributions to the Conservative dictionary. I was banned by [[User:Karajou]] for my actions as WalterS and told that I could come back if I apologized. I am therefore offering my apologies to [[User:Aschlafly]] and [[User:Conservative]]. I am sorry. It was wrong to vandalize your site. I know I don't deserve to stay, but if you can find it within you to allow me to, I would very much appreciate it. God be with you. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 09:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::Your sentiments are appreciated. With the being said, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Schlafly is the sole owner of the website. My articles tend to receive web traffic, but for the most part I create articles and I have blocked some vandals as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:09, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Banned user ==

Conservative recently banned SamCoulter for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' was a legitimate point backed up by a valid reference. Indeed, the same reference has been cited by Conservative on the main page. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:This is a non-starter. Conservative is a senior admin with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of quality edits. This is a meritocracy, David. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:36, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Almost 5% of his "tens of thousands" of quality edits are minor edits. He also created 4 different articles all with the same information as a main article. From what it seemed, SamCoulter was just trying to bring more facts to the table. Three months seems too excessive for something that wasn't even explained as to "why it doesn't belong". [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't agree with Conservative's articles on this topic. That said, I did not get the impression that SamCoulter meant what he posted as a serious contribution, but rather simply as an attempt to "prove a point". He basically [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:SamCoulter&curid=114914&diff=920263&oldid=920262 admitted the same himself, and called himself "juvenile"]. One should consider those facts before drawing any conclusions. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:14, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Nice job taking things out of context. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 00:32, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I do not see how I am doing so. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:55, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::It's like people who quote verses from the Bible (specifically Leviticus). They quote what they want and not its entirety. He admitted what he did was juvenile, but he felt he had to do it that way to bring attention to a topic that Aschlafly appeared to be ignoring. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:04, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::SamCoulter behaved in a manner which, by his own admission, was juvenile, and as a result was blocked. That is the topic being addressed in this section. The issue of those articles, and what position Mr. Schlafly takes or ought to take with respect to them, is a separate discussion which does not belong in this section. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:17, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
Getting back to the point; Conservative banned SamCoulter specifically for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' in question was fully-referenced material, indeed it used the same reference as Conservative had on the main page, and SamCoulter was pretty much quoting what the referenced article stated. The number of edits an admin has made is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether a particular block was justified. A block must be judged according to the specific circumstances of the case, not the past activities of the admin doing the blocking. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 09:26, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== re: User: LeonardS wanting to debate User: Conservative ==

Don't you have ANYTHING to say about my challenge? There's no need to run away; if you don't want to debate a simple "No thank you, I'd rather not" will be quite sufficient. I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of power-crazed vindictive bigot or anything. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you read [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] yet? There is hope and healing available. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:Interesting article. But it is not necessary to be obsessed with you, dear User:Conservative, to spot some inconsistencies between some of your statements and your actions: one can look into the logs of Conservapedia (your log-entries can be found [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Conservative&page=&year=&month=-1 here]). E.g., you stated on 31 July 2011 (and repeatedly after this date):
:::'''''I am not going to be very active at Conservapedia for the near term. '''''
:On the other hand, you performed more than 5,200 logged actions after that date - as many as the next three busiest sysops (Aschlafly, Karajou and Jpatt) '''''together'''''. Generally your behavior doesn't change, whether you announce to have ''a full schedule in the following 90 days'' or not.

:You achieve this remarkable output by contributing to Conservapedia without much pause: over the last three days I couldn't find a period where you have been away from the computer form more than 6 1/2 h: you should try to avoid to have this lack of sleep to have an influence on the quality of your contributions.

:But this is not to uncommon for you: you can go for a nearly a whole day making pauses of half an hour, or for a couple of days without resting for six hours at a time. The only other sysop at Conservapedia who would do the same was TK. Now, it's clear why he showed this pattern - his illness didn't allow him to sleep for more than a precious two, three hours.

:Your fellow sysops failed to spot TK's problems. I'm afraid they keep up this habit of ignoring disturbing signs in other editors...

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::Ronlar, I don't think it's very appropriate for you to be bringing up medical conditions in a public place. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I didn't want to bring up ''medical conditions'', I just made some - as I hope helpful - observations, without offering a diagnosis. BTW: is [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] a medical condition?
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Definitely not in the DSM --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:50, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::RonLar, setting aside whether your observations are correct about my sleep patterns and your apparent obsessiveness about my editing and sleep patterns, I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep and a cursory knowledge of history is all that is needed to know this. But I will make the allowance that perhaps you are an atheist that went to public schools and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself. With that being said, here is a list of famous people in history who didn't need a lot of sleep: [http://amolife.com/personality/great-people-sleep-less.html Famous people who didn't need a lot of sleep]. So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia (see: [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]), you certainly have to take that into account. Plus, to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account. Just out of curiosity why do you think there are some atheists who are very obsessed with myself and Conservapedia? I can assure you the obsession is not one that is mutually shared as the lives of obscure atheist vandal community members are not exactly riveting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::''you maybe an atheist who want to public school and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself.'' I have had enough of your insults Conservative. Just cease it and be respectful of others as commanded: ''And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all ... (2 Timothy 2:24)''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:15, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

User:Conservative, thanks for reacting to my comment. Let's have a look a it - I hope just answering to you won't get me blocked:
*''to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account'' No, there isn't, and there have been examples of this practice: [[User:History]] and [[User:CPanel]] spring to mind. Of course, you could be many - and this would explain you turning down even an audio debate. But you look more honorable seen as a single person:
**in all your challenges you use the ''1st person '''singular''''': ''my articles'', ''my work'', etc. It would be deceitful to create this impression when asking Dawkins, Jillette (and others) to a debate, who must assume that you are a single person. And you won't be that deceptive, I hope?
**it would be lovely to read your ''manual of style'' which would be necessary to keep up your profile. This could be an excerpt:
::{|class="wikitable"
|style "background: lightgrey"|
#Don't use the preview button!
#phrase of the month: '''<s>with regards to</s> <s>obese</s> bestiality''' Use it often!
#Really, don't use the preview button!
…
|}
*''I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep'' An interesting list of famous people you are giving there. But keep in mind that ''sleeping'' is not the only thing which prevents you from editing Conservapedia. Even living today, those celebrities would have difficulties to keep up a 18-hours-a-day pattern of editing, as they would have ''jobs'' (''you certainly have to take that into account'') - Frankly, could Thomas Edison have invented anything if he would have been detracted by the Internet for most of his waking time?
*''So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia […] '' That's the fun of the WikiMedia software - I don't have to log your time, it's done automatically for me...
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:22, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Atheists from a vandal website want to debate User: Conservative ==

Adding cowardice characteristics:

I've just found out 2 major characteristics for cowardice:
*Trying to discredit opponents in view to avoid the confrontation
*Asking for unreasonable conditions and refusing the confrontation if those conditions are not fulfilled.
Would this be acceptable characteristics ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:57, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One thing I do know is that obscure atheists who are members of vandal sites have to actually make a substantial donation to a Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability certified Christian relief organization and have a Bible believing pastor do the transaction for them before I would consider debating them since atheists have a penchant for deception (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). Oh by the way, I may challenge another well known atheist to a debate such as [[Penn Jillette]]. Given that there are 300 less atheists in the world every day and 80,000 more people everyday calling themselves Christian (see: [[Global Christianity]]) and that the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will no doubt create ex-atheists and/or prevent people from becoming atheists in the first place[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I], perhaps it is better to wait so I get more favorable debate terms (I do realize that prominent atheists are often too chicken to debate and of course this trend may continue though (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). :) On the other hand, after the atheist population has been whittled down through conversion to theism, perhaps prominent atheists may be desperate to debate anyone in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:37, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is it a matter of them being too chicken to debate, or do they simply fail to see why they should make a "substantial donation" before debating an anonymous blogger? No offence, but if someone told ME that I'd have to hand over a few thousand dollars before he'd debate me, I'd think he was making excuses. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 14:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Also I don't really get the thing about deception. I mean, I see some guy challenged you to an audio debate. If you arrange the audio hookup then he doesn't appear, that's a victory and it proves your point. If he DOES appear then you get to beat him in the debate. The whole thing with the money does sort of look like a way to get out of challenges, if you look at it from their point of view. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::And what do fat Christians need to do in order to debate you about how CP treats people with weight issues? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:See my response to you at: [[Talk:Atheism and obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:55, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just to confirm - you refuse to discuss with me the way CP demeans obese people by linking them to everything a conservative Christian finds negative (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc.) and refuses to present anyone who is obese in a positive light. (Don't throw health issues into the mix: we both agree with the information on those.) --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:11, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
User:Conservative, you asked for '''17,000$''' (or even '''20,000$''') to be donated to a charity. For this money, one could get a celebrity like R. Dawkins to speak on this matter, in person. Getting this money for a written debate (though not given to you, but to a charity), you most certainly could enter the [[Guinness Book of Records]]! So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If obscure internet atheists who are part of a vandal website don't want to meet my terms, I have no problem with that. The atheism and evolution articles that I largely created (which they cannot find one factual error in) certainly do not want of readership so I am certainly not desperate. I would ask though that they do not whine about the matter like typical socially challenged internet atheist nerds. :) ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men. In short, quarrelsome nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Do you honestly think it's reasonable to expect people to pay $20,000 to debate - in writing, not even live - an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for deciding that they'd rather have a new car? Sorry, I disagree. If you really wanted to debate atheists you wouldn't be doing all this nonsense with the money, and you'd jump at the chance when it was offered. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:53, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Thomas, would you like some cheese with that whine? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:You didn't answer my question. Do you think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for declining to do so? I don't think you actually want to debate atheists, or you'd have taken up the offer from that voiceoftruth guy. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Did I not challenge the atheist Penn Jillette to a debate? I may challenge other non-obscure atheist as well (see comments above). :) By the way, if you could resist the temptation to engage in further whining, I would appreciate it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Penn Jillette is, as you have pointed out, not obscure. Do you expect him to reply to a challenge from an anonymous blogger? He's WAY above needing to worry about that. As far as I can tell here you're the one that's whining, because yet again you've ignored my question about exactly how reasonable it is to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then call them cowards when they don't feel like throwing their money away. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am a Christian and I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:09, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Have not other Christians challenged Penn Jillette to a debate? Has Penn Jillette ever debated a Bible believing Christian? Face it, he evolved into a chicken! (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, I still think you are an atheist and an evolutionist. You certainly whine when I post material unflattering to atheism/atheist community and evolutionism enough. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Stop changing the subject. We're not talking about Penn Jillette; we're talking about YOU. Why do you make such unreasonable demands then accuse people of cowardice for refusing to meet them? To demand $20,000 for a written debate with an obscure blogger is absurd, and it's also dishonest, because even when offered the money you still declined. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::Jesus Christ is my savior, Conservative. Whether you believe me or not is not a concern because ''He'' knows it true. I whine about poor scholarship, I don't care what anyone says about athesits but it must be grounded in ''fact''. Hence I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity right now, right here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:18, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::That sounds like a fair and reasonable debate offer to me. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is all of this really necessary? Yes, it is rather unusual for Conservative to request compensation for engaging in a debate given his lack of celebrity status, but you should still take into account that he's asking for the money to be donated to charity, not paid directly to him. He won't actually gain anything from the offer. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::It's not a matter of where the money GOES; it's the fact that it has to be paid in the first place. User:Conservative is not a prominent figure; he's just an anonymous blogger. The idea that anyone would pay $20,000 to debate him is laughable. Well, ALMOST laughable - an offer has actually been made, which he refused after quickly changing his rules. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:34, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think it's fairly obvious why he wishes to remain anonymous. This page alone shows how much harassment he would face from trolls were he to reveal his identity. The internet isn't a nice place, and people are always on the look out for ways to have fun at another's expense. I believe the term is 'lulz'. He has every right to protect himself from that. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Then he should expect others to do the same and not label them as 'chicken'.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::And he should also accept the fact that if he insists on remaining anonymous nobody's going to be stupid enough to hand over $20,000 to debate him. After all, what recourse do they then have if he fails to participate? If someone's paying that much for a debate it's perfectly reasonable for them to demand a proper contract laying down the conditions, and you can't do that if you don't know who you're meant to be debating. No, it's just a ploy to let him CLAIM he's willing to debate without ever actually having to do it. This was demonstrated when Jeeves at RW offered to pay the money, and User:Conservative still refused to debate him. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:51, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I am willing to debate with you if you agree to give $20,000 to charity. If you are going to refuse my offer, you may be a chicken. I would as well agree that you do not reveal your identity. (No whining in this offer)--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Setting aside the matter of how desirable it is to be a celebrity, it does appear that some people are forgetting the press have quoted/cited my work (Chicago Tribune, St. Peterburg Times, LA Times, etc.). Of course, the Chicago Tribune and St. Petersburg Times quoted my work in a much more favorable light than more liberal press outlets being they are more conservative publications than many press outlets. In addition, gentlemen with doctorates in relevant fields have linked to my work. Of course, many of my atheist detractors are very aware of the press quoting my work, but being jealous, obscure, quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] they certainly are reluctant to admit this fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Can you link to these press outlets and people with doctorates citing your work? I am curious to read them. Also, what about my debate offer on Atheism and Obesity? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::First, I hope the 'atheist nerd' does not refer to me. Second, can you provide the links to these press articles ? Third, I think I am neither jealous, obscure nor quarrelsome... So why would you refuse to debate me ? Unfortunately, I am not wealthy enough to spare $20,000 for a debate but you will agree that lack of money is not a sin.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Irrelevant. We're not talking about press coverage of your work (do you have any links to support that, by the way?) but about the ludicrous conditions you attach to debates, while at the same time claiming that atheists are too scared to debate you. Well they aren't - you've had two offers from atheists in the last 48 hours, plus two more from fellow Christians, all of which you've avoided or refused - and it is dishonest of you to make this claim. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, Veritas48 was a kind and thoughtful Christian apologists at YouTube who was harassed in very inappropriate ways by atheists. [[JP Holding]] had an obsessive atheist call his wife at work. If you think I am going to allow some obscure, socially challenged atheist nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]) to needlessly hassle people with doctorates who like my work and have cited it, that is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Harassment like continually calling them chickens, mocking their weight and farcical accusations bestiality? What about newspapers that have cited your work? How about my offer of a debate? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Again, that's not relevant unless you're saying that you're refusing to debate because you insist on anonymity. I don't see how an audio debate is going to affect that, so why did you refuse? And surely you realise that to ask people to pay $20,000 when they have no legal recourse if you don't attend the debate is completely unreasonable?--[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:17, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Thomas, bring some non-obscure atheists to debate me with reasonable offers to debate me via written debate or pony up the $20,000 to be given to a ECFA certified Christian relief charity that is requested of me to debate obscure atheists who are part of vandal websites. It's that simple. Deal with it and stop whining. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, people won't pay $20,000 to debate with an obscure christian nerd. No whining here.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Yet AGAIN you have avoided the question: why do you impose such ludicrous conditions for a debate then accuse people of cowardice for not meeting them? If you genuinely want to debate atheists why don't you - as an obscure blogger - do so without demanding that they hand over $20,000 with no assurance other than your word that the debate will ever happen? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Oy, Reminder, Keep the discussion civil.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 17:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I'm certainly willing to avoid the word "ludicrous" in future if other participants stop calling people cowards, quarrelsome nerds or socially challenged, and agree to stop questioning the faith of the Christian participants here. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Agreed to avoid calling others 'obscure nerds'--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:35, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::By the way, given that: 1) each day there are 300 less atheists in the world and 80,000 additional people who call themselves Christian each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]) 2) The [[Question evolution! campaign]] will cull the atheists population further.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] - I certainly may up the amount obscure atheists who are part of a vandal website must donate to a Christian relief organization in order for me to debate them. :) And of course, given the way that [[Ben Bernanke]] prints money, inflation is certainly a consideration as well. Also, I do realize it is often difficult to find non-obscure atheists who are willing to debate (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]), but I certainly would look at reasonable debate offers from such individuals. :) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I am offering you a reasonable debate on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. I am not a "quarrelsome atheist" or anything else. We can have a written debate here on conservapedia right now or at an agreed time. Why are you avoiding this offer yet calling everyone else a coward? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::For the same reason as he avoided the offers from Jeeves, Ace McWicked and voiceoftruth2006, I imagine. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::I don't know who those people are...? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Jeeves and Ace McWicked are two members of RW who each offered to pay the required $20,000 for a debate with User:Conservative; even so, he declined. voiceoftruth2006 is a YouTube atheist who offered to debate him two days ago; he ignored the offer. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::Gee, if I had a spare $20,000 I certainly wouldn't be offering it up for an internet debate! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:01, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::It's probably quite safe to offer it to Ken; after all, if history is anything to go by he's not going to accept. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Excellent response, Conservative! Your intelligence level is obviously very, very high. [[User:AverageJoe|AverageJoe]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::How long do you intend to continue avoiding my question? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Oh I give up, it just doesn't make any sense...--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, do you think your comments on this page give a promising preview of your debating skills? Frankly, after reading your non-answers I have difficulties to imagine someone to pony up 2$ for the pleasure to have a written debate with you. But perhaps you can increase your market value by answering my question above:
::''So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well!''
Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::Jeeves and Ace never showed that they had a trustworthy Christian to make the donation which certainly was a condition to debate. I did suggest giving the money to a Bible believing pastor of their choosing, but of course, that never happened. I understand that obscure atheists who are part of a vandal site don't like my debate conditions, but I think it is safe to say that this does not keep me up at nights. :) My back is not against the wall - it is the atheist population that is shrinking the world each day while the conservative Christian population appears to be exploding in numbers each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]). :) Keep squabbling amongst yourselves quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] (see: [[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and women]]), while God keeps expanding the Christian population! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::So Aschlafly isn't a trustworthy Christian? I mean, they DID offer to give the money to him. Anyway you still haven't answered my question, have you? Do you really think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate an obscure blogger, with no legal assurance that the debate will actually take place even after they've paid, then call them cowards when they decline to do so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:32, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, my comments may have been lost on this page so please see [[Talk:Atheism_and_obesity#Reasonable_debate_offer|here]]. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

I'd just like to say that I think Conservative is not a coward and that he would debate if he could find a worthy opponent. Also, it is inappropriate to discuss this issue in public. --[[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] 18:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:That's your opinion, of course, and you're entitled to it. However as Conservative frequently discusses the cowardice of atheists on this site he can hardly complain when his own willingness (or otherwise) to debate crops up, can he? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Thomas, what was stopping Jeeves and Ace from giving the donation to Bible believing pastor of their choosing to give to a Christian relief organization? Were they unable to find Bible believing pastors? Are there no Bible believing pastors in their country or in the world? I am sorry, but their bluff was called and shown to be the farce that it was. Please feel free to blather on today, but don't be surprised if I disregard your blather. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What was stopping them giving the money to Andy Schlafly? I'll tell you what was stopping them giving it to a vicar; they didn't trust you and they wanted a properly witnessed and signed contract that legally committed you to doing the debate once the money had been paid. And you STILL haven't answered my question! You're just an obscure, anonymous blogger; don't you think it's utterly unreasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate you, with no assurance that you'll even attend, then call them cowards for not doing so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 19:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::User:Conservative, if you have the courage of your conviction then debating anyone about what you are sure is right then should be easy. Yet you avoid. Harding filling those who are watching this with confidence. I believe this to be an Encyclopedia where getting to the truth should be paramount. This can only be done by debate and a free exchange of ideas. Not be nit-picking the motives of those who wish to discuss things and come to a valid and provable conclusion[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 03:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
I am going to be frank. The idea of debating obscure atheist members of a vandal site is repugnant to me and I don't see much value in it. It would be the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists which I think is generally a bad practice and to be avoided if possible. I would need to see a lot of good come out of it, hence the requirement that these people donate $20,000 to a Christian relief organization. I also see a lot of trends that don't bode well for atheism both in the Western World and Eastern World so I think the [[decline of atheism]] will continue (deficits causing budget cuts to liberal Western public universities, further decline of the liberal mainstream press audience, tough economic times causing individuals to turn back to God, [[Question evolution! campaign]], explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], etc. etc.). Of course, this further reduces my incentive to want to debate obscure atheists. Lastly, there are some personal things which I put off doing that I wish to attend to. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

:Strange. I thought that converting these atheist by using your superior debating skills would be a kind of reward in itself. How do you intend to help to cut the ''squeak'' of atheists in half if you are unwilling to engage them? Is this the reason that the [[Question Evolution!]] campaign is oriented to churches - which are the most unlikely places to find a atheist to convert him (or her)? And surprisingly, you are willing to speak with the ring-leaders, the ''top terrorists''! If you don't think yourself to be fit to move the heart - and brains - of the ''obscure atheists'', what do you think you can accomplish by speaking to the more famous ones? Oh wait: do you have a secret rhetorical device which can be used only once - and you try to optimize its impact? Sorry, those things work only in the fantasy of little boys plotting in their super-secret tree-houses...

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:01, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
RonLar, I think the type of atheists who are part of vandal websites or the type of atheists who harassed Veritas48 at YouTube are the bottom of the barrel and are not the type of people who are good candidates for engagement. Jesus advised Christians not to cast pearls before swine. Second, I have always claimed that due to the weakness of atheism and the strength of the Christian position that it doesn't take exceptional debating skills to prevail and that is why a 15 year old boy can win debates with adult atheists as can be seen [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSo9hW2dOBo HERE]. Next, in most cases there is a reason why obscure internet atheists from vandal websites are obscure. Few people are interested in what they have to say. Lastly, tracts are designed to be evangelical and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] tracts are no different. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

=== In Short..===
You are saying that [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]], [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]], [[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]], [[User:SharonW|SharonW]], and [[User:ARamis|ARamis]] are vandals/atheists? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 12:09, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:I am getting tired of these false accusations: Proverbs 3:30, ''Do not accuse a man for no reason, when he has done you no harm''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:14, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
== Behaviour of Conservative (again) ==

Andy, Contrary to the wishes of every CP editor who has posted here, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] has added some more disgusting articles about bestiality: [[Bestiality and Sweden]], [[Bestiality and Britain]] and (no joking) [[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]. What's more, he's protected these pages so no other editor can get rid of them. This whole stupid bestiality stunt by Conservative is making CP a complete and utter joke.

1. If I or any other editor blocks him for a short time to make him cool off, he'll simply revert the block. Will you please block him? Give him a week to get those animal images out of his head.

2. Will you please delete his disgusting pages on bestiality?

3. Will you please consider whether or not there's any point in a well-intentioned editor (like me) contributing to an encyclopedia which is just turning into a joke because of the deranged activities of an out-of-control editor who has a high level of administrator privilege? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:16, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:First things first...
::1. You're going to successfully refute the bestiality edits posted. Either the individuals or countries cited have made claims pertaining to their support of bestiality, or they didn't.
::2. You're going to explain how yourself, a recent contributor to this website, can justify the removal of a senior administrator who has been here from the beginning; this explanation is contingent on you being able to satisfy condition number 1. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:37, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::1. These articles run contrary to the founding principles of this site in that they are utterly inappropriate for family viewing.
:::2. Personally I have no interest in "the removal" of User:Conservative, just some of his offensive articles.
:::Karajou, I urge you to move beyond a reflex defense of User:Conservative and to look at the harm being done to the reputation of this site. One of the reasons I have used Conservapedia as a reference instead of Wikipedia is that it doesn't contain references to extreme deviance. These latest articles violate that principle. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:44, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::And what harm is that? What harm is actually being done to this website? What exactly is the harm that this website is engaging in by telling the public about a disgusting sexual practice and those who promote it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:50, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I can help with number one in that [[Bestiality and Britain]] doesn't have any mention of Britian and actually pertains to a British study of Sweden and has nothing to do with Britain - hence should be deleted. Also, [[Atheism and bestiality]] again says nothing of atheists - the only connection is that Peter Singer himself is an atheist. I actually can't check any deeper as I am on a shared network and don't want these articles on the logs. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:45, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::1a. Well, I have no direct information about the claims of bestiality of course, not least because no hard, verifiable data is given in any of the articles Conservative cites.
::::1b. Bestiality is illegal in Britain, unlike in many US states - including some of the most conservative states such as Alabama. Would you like me to add an article about "The USA, conservatives and bestiality" just because some weirdo in Alabama might be doing it with a dog? That makes as much sense as Conservative's stupid articles about atheists and bestiality.
::::2. Because this senior administrator is completely out of control, making a total mockery of the website. Think about it for a microsecond - please... He clearly needs a cooling-off period to stop thinking about such weird stuff, let alone putting on a website which is supposed to be family-friendly. Some of the other senior administrators need to get a grip. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:52, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::You have ''"no direct information about the claims of bestiality"'', by admission, so all of this is just another attack on Conservative by whiners who cannot or will not offer anything beyong whines and rants, and this has been going on in one form or another by select individuals for years. My message is simple: it stops NOW. You're going to respect him, or you're going to leave. Period. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:03, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I am not going to mention Conservative but, Karajou, I would like to point out my comment above - particularly as you said ''the individuals or countries cited have made claims pertaining to their support of bestiality, or they didn't.'' The Britain article says nothing about the practice in Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:12, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::If Conservative - or any other user - is wrong, then you ''politely'' say so, provide evidence to back up your claims, and then drop the subject. That is how it works here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is what I have already done I thought? The [[Bestiality and Britain]] article does not mention bestiality practices in Britain hence needs to be renamed or removed. thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:29, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou, the guiding principles of the site take precedence over everything else here, except the Word of our Lord. I quote from the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]]:
::::::::::''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable"'' - people have already pointed out that "Conservative"'s study is neither of these.
::::::::::''"Any content you create ... must be family-friendly"'' - these articles '''clearly''' are not family-friendly.
:::::::::In other words, these new articles by "Conservative" are in violation of two of the founding principles of this site. By your own standards, they must be deleted. I'm afraid that the onus is upon '''you''' to explain why these articles remain, in violation of the standards defined by the site's owner. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:50, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
I think that it is very disrespectful to keep bringing this debate to Andy talk page. It is obvious that he does not want to get involved in this, and you should respect his decision. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 18:55, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:Max, Is the Bible family friendly? What are your thoughts about these verses of the Bible: Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21 ? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::Well, that is a slightly facetious argument. You can't compare the Bible, and the laws of God, to Conservapedia firstly and secondly Conservapedia, unlike the Bible, has an explicit Family Friendly rule. And please address the fact that [[Bestiality and Britain]] has no mention of Bestiality and Britain. Just to be clear - my quarrel isn't with you ''personally'' but at the poor scholarship. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:53, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Khalid, atheism is madness and immorality is commonly associated with atheism. When people read about topics such atheism, it is not surprising to many people to read about odd/bizarre/weird things and people committing sinful acts. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:58, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::The history of liberal opposition to my articles [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS8rpt1y6lk&feature=related reminds me of someone.] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:12, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Just because someone has problems with your articles doesn't make them a liberal. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 21:14, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Andy, are you reading your Talk page? ==

If so, please read the section above (Behaviour of Conservative) and please take a decision on which way you want CP to go: family-friendly encyclopedia or weirdo blog. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:08, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:That's very black and white. When making an argument try to avoid those.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:16, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Khalid, atheism is madness and immorality is commonly associated with atheism. When people read about topics such atheism, it is not surprising to many people to read about odd/bizarre/weird things and people committing sinful acts. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:58, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Can this section be removed? It is a waste of space since I'm sure Mr. Schlafly reads his own talk page. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 21:16, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Why don't we move this entire discussion to the Community Portal? I am sure Mr. Schlafly doesn't appreciate all the bickering on his talk page.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:23, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== The atheism blues ==

Announcing: [[Essay: The atheism blues|The atheism blues]]. Let the whining, kvetching and crying the blues begin in earnest! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
:I am still waiting for you to accept my Atheism and Obesity debate challenge and address the fact that [[Bestiality and Britain]] contains information on Bestiality and Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:06, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-30T04:07:16Z

MaxFletcher: /* The atheism blues */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==

I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]]. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==

Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:

1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].

2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic.

3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being "demonic" offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair "exorcist" commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights.

Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was "demonic" I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.

4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past.

5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics.

6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]].

7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says "Atheism is true because I say so" or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''
:Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]].
:Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in "Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)...."?
:*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''
:I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=888699]
:*''suggested a blocking review board ''
:You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have.
:*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''
:And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE]. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''
:::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it.
:::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.
:::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rude and insulting behaviour ==

Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The same user has now taken to insulting me and questioning MY faith, simply becaue I disagree with him about the best way to oppose evolutionism, and nobody else seems to be making any attempts to curtail his offensive behaviour. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''" (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==
Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is "sysops playing the bully", yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.
:::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception.
:::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.
:::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou & User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the "thin skinned" comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents.
:::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.
:::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say "Thank you, we're not interested," and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying "Goodbye" and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking "no" for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' "our" is also "me" because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,''
::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==a perspective from a pianist==
MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.

But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only "original" content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical "parody" pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop "community," if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.

My whole time here, I've heard it argued, "well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism." In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call "the best of the public," and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.

My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them "faux" answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not "serious accusations" these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a "dig at conservative" i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me "demonic" at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was "Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind." Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is
:'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''
But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==And end to this==

Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, "the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my "castle" and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of "pesterfesting".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you
::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...
::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I found out by checking the block log, which you can find by going to TracyS' userpage and clicking "View full log". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:02, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Ah yes, so I see. Thanks for that. I also notice a rather unsavory comment in there from RobS regarding another sysop. This is starting to look very unsatisfactory. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== User:Conservative ==

I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.

Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.

I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.

A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc.

User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]] Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.

Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The Conservapedian Iduan has expressed some interest in helping refine Conservapedia's blocking policy. He is currently on a summer vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I sent an email to Iduan to find out when his vacation is over. I expect to receive a reply within 2-7 days. In the meantime, people who are going to be on the blocking policy refinement panel may want to look at these two pages: [[User:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] and [[User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:17, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::The panel is convening on 8/17/11: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:59, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

=== A question for the ''ayes'' ===
Would you have voted for '''deleting''' the archives, too? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:04, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes. While there might have been some good points in those discussions, the vast majority was name-calling by troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets. Keeping it around gives a false impression of the site, which is exactly what the troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets want. If any of the discussion in those archives was worthwhile, I'm sure it'll be brought up again in a more orderly fashion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
*it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
*To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative!
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.
*And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar: A few comments: 1) Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) 2) Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth 3) Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy 4) At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive to which I believe could increase its viewership. By the way, how many websites have you considerably added traffic to? My guess is none so your "expert" opinion has little weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:# ''Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.)'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy'' That may be a very promising development...
:# ''At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership.'' In the fast moving world of the internet, such intricate plans are of relatively little value.
:By the way: could you show me to a talk page where you successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? Thanks
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, who said my plan was intricate? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite to the panel so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall ==

A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

I am sending an email to [[User:Iduan]] to determine when he is returning from his vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Just returned; first: sleep; then: back to business.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have blocking rights. May I join?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 17:10, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I added you to list. I don't think there will be any objections to me doing so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==Response to Karajou==
I told Andy yesterday I would respond to these baseless charges today, but spent the better part of the last nine hours blocked after User:Conservative flip-flopped, reverted himself, and unblocked me (I'll accept your apology later, User:Conservative, for inconveniencing me). But to Mr. Karajou: you seem to be of the opinion that,
:'''A little leven leveneth the whole lump.'''
That would be true, if Conservapedia were a monolith, requiring ideological conformity. But it's not, and never has been. Let's not forget the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares,
:'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares#Narrative An enemy hath done this]. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.''' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:29, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Here is the evidence that I am aware of:

1. Both RobS and TracyS edited from the same IP address. After Karajou pointed this out, I personally confirmed this matter.

2. Both were somewhat obsessed with my talk page design in an annoying way despite the fact that Conservapedia says a user's talk page is his/her castle. At the time, I had a system for leaving messages to me. I have since closes my talk page for leaving messages due to RobS and his atheist pals use of pestering tactics.

3. Both were dishonest. For example, RobS claiming he referred to me as demonic at Conservapedia which he never did as he knows the charge was baseless plus he didn't have the guts to do this at Conservapedia, but instead chose to do this at an atheist gutter website that is filled with obscenity and gossip. TracyS claimed he/she was not trying to annoy me about my talk despite using language purposely meant to annoy.

4. Both were annoying and needlessly argumentative.

5. Karajou claims there were multiple sockpuppets of RobS, but I have not personally investigated this matter.

RobS is still an egotist and has learned nothing. It would be a big mistake at this time to give him back his Sysop/Admin rights. He would just foment a lot of useless drama and nonsense. Conservapedia doesn't need RobS the egotist to change its blocking policy and a panel of which he is not a part to refine its blocking policy is far better suited to the task. I invited people to take part in such a panel and some have accepted my invitation to take part in the panel.

I did block RobS earlier for a short spell due to him being disruptive to me posting a notice in this room that would be more constructive than much of the current content which I archived. However, with another Sysops's assistance I was able to send out invitations to the appropriate parties so the notice at the community portal was no longer needed so I unblocked RobS and de-archived the material. Given his past behavior, I see no reason to apologize for any inconvenience this caused RobS.

I will now let RobS give his empty sales pitch on how his desysoping was all a misunderstanding and a mistake on Aschlafly's part. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative, I told Andy yesterday I would respond here, but was prevented by you and the whole day was wasted. Also, I see the whole page & its Archives have been vandalized, as well as other users private user space, so I hesitate in wasting anymore time here. I will however, respond with this:
:'''"pesterfesting"''': this is the term User:Conservative uses for what is commonly refereed to in the outside world as '''"[[Advocacy]]"'''. An advocate is a person who acts on behalf of others who are incapable, or have been prevented from acting on their own behalf. Two examples of advocates would be, (1) [[Andrew Schlafly]], noted attorney, and (2) [[Jesus Christ]], [[savior]] of the [[planet]]. Advocacy is very common in the world of wikis, but I can see where you would have difficultly with the idea. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:57, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, in retrospect, I believe your "pesterfesting" was just a petty and narcissistic post TK power grab which tried to show others that you were the "big man on campus". Second, I am sorry to hear that you couldn't find other things to do besides edit Conservapedia and that your whole day was wasted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun and can be found [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Android App? ==

Does anyone have the link to the android app? I am unable to find it for some strange reason. [[User:JacobSmith|JacobSmith]] 22:05, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am an Android user. Nothing exists and was likely a person having fun with lies.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

== My Testimony ==

I was a liberal atheist. About two weeks ago, I was talking to a Conservative friend of mine and she pointed me to the site conservapedia.com. So I came here and read a few articles. Then read a few more. Then when I noticed registration was open, I signed up, but didn't contribute right away, but I kept reading. I read [[Christian apologetics]], [[Counterexamples to Evolution]], [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]] and some wonderful essays too numerous to list. While reading, I felt...something. Something I haven't felt since I was a child. Yesterday, Sunday Morning, I did something I haven't done in nearly 30 years: I went to church. It was wonderful and I do believe I felt the Holy Spirit. I don't believe I deserve to call myself a Christian yet, but I'm looking forward to next Sunday. :-) Thank you all. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 13:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Summer Paper Gone Bad ==

Summer is drawing to a close and school is beginning again. I have decided to write my essay on the origin of the moon, citing Conservapedia several times. When my teacher (this is a public school) gave me my paper back with the grade an all, he gave me a 62. In addition, he gave me a "good talking to" on not using Wikipedia. I tried to explain him that Conservapedia is different, he just wouldn't listen! He gave me the opportunity to do the paper again using different sources. I don't want to use different sources, because they are most often plagued with bias. My question is simple- how do we separate ourselves from Wikipedia to the general public, and how to we improve our reputation? --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 17:13, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:Wikis are not normally considered good sources for research as they are generally open and can be edited by anyone. And any decent teacher (public school or not) probably won't accept an encyclopedia of any kind (hard copy or online) as a source for a research paper, as they normally want the student to actually do some research. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:06, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::William, the good news is you were docked points for your sources and not for content. That implies that your teacher has an open mind. I'd suggest Answers in Genesis, A Storehouse of Knowledge, Creation Ministries International or look at some of Ray Comfort's books. Of course, these sources are all the work of man and are therefore always biased and flawed. For the truth, you'll want to turn to the Bible. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 19:57, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

== An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly ==

I was [[User:WalterS]] and made an inappropriate comment several months ago. Then two days ago I signed up again under the name JefferyA and tried to make some contributions to the Conservative dictionary. I was banned by [[User:Karajou]] for my actions as WalterS and told that I could come back if I apologized. I am therefore offering my apologies to [[User:Aschlafly]] and [[User:Conservative]]. I am sorry. It was wrong to vandalize your site. I know I don't deserve to stay, but if you can find it within you to allow me to, I would very much appreciate it. God be with you. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 09:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::Your sentiments are appreciated. With the being said, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Schlafly is the sole owner of the website. My articles tend to receive web traffic, but for the most part I create articles and I have blocked some vandals as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:09, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Banned user ==

Conservative recently banned SamCoulter for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' was a legitimate point backed up by a valid reference. Indeed, the same reference has been cited by Conservative on the main page. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:This is a non-starter. Conservative is a senior admin with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of quality edits. This is a meritocracy, David. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:36, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Almost 5% of his "tens of thousands" of quality edits are minor edits. He also created 4 different articles all with the same information as a main article. From what it seemed, SamCoulter was just trying to bring more facts to the table. Three months seems too excessive for something that wasn't even explained as to "why it doesn't belong". [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't agree with Conservative's articles on this topic. That said, I did not get the impression that SamCoulter meant what he posted as a serious contribution, but rather simply as an attempt to "prove a point". He basically [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:SamCoulter&curid=114914&diff=920263&oldid=920262 admitted the same himself, and called himself "juvenile"]. One should consider those facts before drawing any conclusions. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:14, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Nice job taking things out of context. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 00:32, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I do not see how I am doing so. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:55, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::It's like people who quote verses from the Bible (specifically Leviticus). They quote what they want and not its entirety. He admitted what he did was juvenile, but he felt he had to do it that way to bring attention to a topic that Aschlafly appeared to be ignoring. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:04, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::SamCoulter behaved in a manner which, by his own admission, was juvenile, and as a result was blocked. That is the topic being addressed in this section. The issue of those articles, and what position Mr. Schlafly takes or ought to take with respect to them, is a separate discussion which does not belong in this section. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:17, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
Getting back to the point; Conservative banned SamCoulter specifically for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' in question was fully-referenced material, indeed it used the same reference as Conservative had on the main page, and SamCoulter was pretty much quoting what the referenced article stated. The number of edits an admin has made is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether a particular block was justified. A block must be judged according to the specific circumstances of the case, not the past activities of the admin doing the blocking. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 09:26, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== re: User: LeonardS wanting to debate User: Conservative ==

Don't you have ANYTHING to say about my challenge? There's no need to run away; if you don't want to debate a simple "No thank you, I'd rather not" will be quite sufficient. I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of power-crazed vindictive bigot or anything. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you read [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] yet? There is hope and healing available. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:Interesting article. But it is not necessary to be obsessed with you, dear User:Conservative, to spot some inconsistencies between some of your statements and your actions: one can look into the logs of Conservapedia (your log-entries can be found [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Conservative&page=&year=&month=-1 here]). E.g., you stated on 31 July 2011 (and repeatedly after this date):
:::'''''I am not going to be very active at Conservapedia for the near term. '''''
:On the other hand, you performed more than 5,200 logged actions after that date - as many as the next three busiest sysops (Aschlafly, Karajou and Jpatt) '''''together'''''. Generally your behavior doesn't change, whether you announce to have ''a full schedule in the following 90 days'' or not.

:You achieve this remarkable output by contributing to Conservapedia without much pause: over the last three days I couldn't find a period where you have been away from the computer form more than 6 1/2 h: you should try to avoid to have this lack of sleep to have an influence on the quality of your contributions.

:But this is not to uncommon for you: you can go for a nearly a whole day making pauses of half an hour, or for a couple of days without resting for six hours at a time. The only other sysop at Conservapedia who would do the same was TK. Now, it's clear why he showed this pattern - his illness didn't allow him to sleep for more than a precious two, three hours.

:Your fellow sysops failed to spot TK's problems. I'm afraid they keep up this habit of ignoring disturbing signs in other editors...

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::Ronlar, I don't think it's very appropriate for you to be bringing up medical conditions in a public place. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I didn't want to bring up ''medical conditions'', I just made some - as I hope helpful - observations, without offering a diagnosis. BTW: is [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] a medical condition?
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Definitely not in the DSM --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:50, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::RonLar, setting aside whether your observations are correct about my sleep patterns and your apparent obsessiveness about my editing and sleep patterns, I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep and a cursory knowledge of history is all that is needed to know this. But I will make the allowance that perhaps you are an atheist that went to public schools and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself. With that being said, here is a list of famous people in history who didn't need a lot of sleep: [http://amolife.com/personality/great-people-sleep-less.html Famous people who didn't need a lot of sleep]. So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia (see: [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]), you certainly have to take that into account. Plus, to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account. Just out of curiosity why do you think there are some atheists who are very obsessed with myself and Conservapedia? I can assure you the obsession is not one that is mutually shared as the lives of obscure atheist vandal community members are not exactly riveting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::''you maybe an atheist who want to public school and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself.'' I have had enough of your insults Conservative. Just cease it and be respectful of others as commanded: ''And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all ... (2 Timothy 2:24)''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:15, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

User:Conservative, thanks for reacting to my comment. Let's have a look a it - I hope just answering to you won't get me blocked:
*''to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account'' No, there isn't, and there have been examples of this practice: [[User:History]] and [[User:CPanel]] spring to mind. Of course, you could be many - and this would explain you turning down even an audio debate. But you look more honorable seen as a single person:
**in all your challenges you use the ''1st person '''singular''''': ''my articles'', ''my work'', etc. It would be deceitful to create this impression when asking Dawkins, Jillette (and others) to a debate, who must assume that you are a single person. And you won't be that deceptive, I hope?
**it would be lovely to read your ''manual of style'' which would be necessary to keep up your profile. This could be an excerpt:
::{|class="wikitable"
|style "background: lightgrey"|
#Don't use the preview button!
#phrase of the month: '''<s>with regards to</s> <s>obese</s> bestiality''' Use it often!
#Really, don't use the preview button!
…
|}
*''I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep'' An interesting list of famous people you are giving there. But keep in mind that ''sleeping'' is not the only thing which prevents you from editing Conservapedia. Even living today, those celebrities would have difficulties to keep up a 18-hours-a-day pattern of editing, as they would have ''jobs'' (''you certainly have to take that into account'') - Frankly, could Thomas Edison have invented anything if he would have been detracted by the Internet for most of his waking time?
*''So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia […] '' That's the fun of the WikiMedia software - I don't have to log your time, it's done automatically for me...
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:22, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Atheists from a vandal website want to debate User: Conservative ==

Adding cowardice characteristics:

I've just found out 2 major characteristics for cowardice:
*Trying to discredit opponents in view to avoid the confrontation
*Asking for unreasonable conditions and refusing the confrontation if those conditions are not fulfilled.
Would this be acceptable characteristics ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:57, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One thing I do know is that obscure atheists who are members of vandal sites have to actually make a substantial donation to a Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability certified Christian relief organization and have a Bible believing pastor do the transaction for them before I would consider debating them since atheists have a penchant for deception (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). Oh by the way, I may challenge another well known atheist to a debate such as [[Penn Jillette]]. Given that there are 300 less atheists in the world every day and 80,000 more people everyday calling themselves Christian (see: [[Global Christianity]]) and that the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will no doubt create ex-atheists and/or prevent people from becoming atheists in the first place[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I], perhaps it is better to wait so I get more favorable debate terms (I do realize that prominent atheists are often too chicken to debate and of course this trend may continue though (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). :) On the other hand, after the atheist population has been whittled down through conversion to theism, perhaps prominent atheists may be desperate to debate anyone in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:37, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is it a matter of them being too chicken to debate, or do they simply fail to see why they should make a "substantial donation" before debating an anonymous blogger? No offence, but if someone told ME that I'd have to hand over a few thousand dollars before he'd debate me, I'd think he was making excuses. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 14:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Also I don't really get the thing about deception. I mean, I see some guy challenged you to an audio debate. If you arrange the audio hookup then he doesn't appear, that's a victory and it proves your point. If he DOES appear then you get to beat him in the debate. The whole thing with the money does sort of look like a way to get out of challenges, if you look at it from their point of view. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::And what do fat Christians need to do in order to debate you about how CP treats people with weight issues? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:See my response to you at: [[Talk:Atheism and obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:55, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just to confirm - you refuse to discuss with me the way CP demeans obese people by linking them to everything a conservative Christian finds negative (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc.) and refuses to present anyone who is obese in a positive light. (Don't throw health issues into the mix: we both agree with the information on those.) --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:11, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
User:Conservative, you asked for '''17,000$''' (or even '''20,000$''') to be donated to a charity. For this money, one could get a celebrity like R. Dawkins to speak on this matter, in person. Getting this money for a written debate (though not given to you, but to a charity), you most certainly could enter the [[Guinness Book of Records]]! So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If obscure internet atheists who are part of a vandal website don't want to meet my terms, I have no problem with that. The atheism and evolution articles that I largely created (which they cannot find one factual error in) certainly do not want of readership so I am certainly not desperate. I would ask though that they do not whine about the matter like typical socially challenged internet atheist nerds. :) ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men. In short, quarrelsome nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Do you honestly think it's reasonable to expect people to pay $20,000 to debate - in writing, not even live - an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for deciding that they'd rather have a new car? Sorry, I disagree. If you really wanted to debate atheists you wouldn't be doing all this nonsense with the money, and you'd jump at the chance when it was offered. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:53, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Thomas, would you like some cheese with that whine? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:You didn't answer my question. Do you think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for declining to do so? I don't think you actually want to debate atheists, or you'd have taken up the offer from that voiceoftruth guy. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Did I not challenge the atheist Penn Jillette to a debate? I may challenge other non-obscure atheist as well (see comments above). :) By the way, if you could resist the temptation to engage in further whining, I would appreciate it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Penn Jillette is, as you have pointed out, not obscure. Do you expect him to reply to a challenge from an anonymous blogger? He's WAY above needing to worry about that. As far as I can tell here you're the one that's whining, because yet again you've ignored my question about exactly how reasonable it is to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then call them cowards when they don't feel like throwing their money away. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am a Christian and I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:09, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Have not other Christians challenged Penn Jillette to a debate? Has Penn Jillette ever debated a Bible believing Christian? Face it, he evolved into a chicken! (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, I still think you are an atheist and an evolutionist. You certainly whine when I post material unflattering to atheism/atheist community and evolutionism enough. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Stop changing the subject. We're not talking about Penn Jillette; we're talking about YOU. Why do you make such unreasonable demands then accuse people of cowardice for refusing to meet them? To demand $20,000 for a written debate with an obscure blogger is absurd, and it's also dishonest, because even when offered the money you still declined. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::Jesus Christ is my savior, Conservative. Whether you believe me or not is not a concern because ''He'' knows it true. I whine about poor scholarship, I don't care what anyone says about athesits but it must be grounded in ''fact''. Hence I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity right now, right here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:18, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::That sounds like a fair and reasonable debate offer to me. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is all of this really necessary? Yes, it is rather unusual for Conservative to request compensation for engaging in a debate given his lack of celebrity status, but you should still take into account that he's asking for the money to be donated to charity, not paid directly to him. He won't actually gain anything from the offer. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::It's not a matter of where the money GOES; it's the fact that it has to be paid in the first place. User:Conservative is not a prominent figure; he's just an anonymous blogger. The idea that anyone would pay $20,000 to debate him is laughable. Well, ALMOST laughable - an offer has actually been made, which he refused after quickly changing his rules. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:34, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think it's fairly obvious why he wishes to remain anonymous. This page alone shows how much harassment he would face from trolls were he to reveal his identity. The internet isn't a nice place, and people are always on the look out for ways to have fun at another's expense. I believe the term is 'lulz'. He has every right to protect himself from that. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Then he should expect others to do the same and not label them as 'chicken'.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::And he should also accept the fact that if he insists on remaining anonymous nobody's going to be stupid enough to hand over $20,000 to debate him. After all, what recourse do they then have if he fails to participate? If someone's paying that much for a debate it's perfectly reasonable for them to demand a proper contract laying down the conditions, and you can't do that if you don't know who you're meant to be debating. No, it's just a ploy to let him CLAIM he's willing to debate without ever actually having to do it. This was demonstrated when Jeeves at RW offered to pay the money, and User:Conservative still refused to debate him. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:51, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I am willing to debate with you if you agree to give $20,000 to charity. If you are going to refuse my offer, you may be a chicken. I would as well agree that you do not reveal your identity. (No whining in this offer)--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Setting aside the matter of how desirable it is to be a celebrity, it does appear that some people are forgetting the press have quoted/cited my work (Chicago Tribune, St. Peterburg Times, LA Times, etc.). Of course, the Chicago Tribune and St. Petersburg Times quoted my work in a much more favorable light than more liberal press outlets being they are more conservative publications than many press outlets. In addition, gentlemen with doctorates in relevant fields have linked to my work. Of course, many of my atheist detractors are very aware of the press quoting my work, but being jealous, obscure, quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] they certainly are reluctant to admit this fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Can you link to these press outlets and people with doctorates citing your work? I am curious to read them. Also, what about my debate offer on Atheism and Obesity? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::First, I hope the 'atheist nerd' does not refer to me. Second, can you provide the links to these press articles ? Third, I think I am neither jealous, obscure nor quarrelsome... So why would you refuse to debate me ? Unfortunately, I am not wealthy enough to spare $20,000 for a debate but you will agree that lack of money is not a sin.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Irrelevant. We're not talking about press coverage of your work (do you have any links to support that, by the way?) but about the ludicrous conditions you attach to debates, while at the same time claiming that atheists are too scared to debate you. Well they aren't - you've had two offers from atheists in the last 48 hours, plus two more from fellow Christians, all of which you've avoided or refused - and it is dishonest of you to make this claim. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, Veritas48 was a kind and thoughtful Christian apologists at YouTube who was harassed in very inappropriate ways by atheists. [[JP Holding]] had an obsessive atheist call his wife at work. If you think I am going to allow some obscure, socially challenged atheist nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]) to needlessly hassle people with doctorates who like my work and have cited it, that is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Harassment like continually calling them chickens, mocking their weight and farcical accusations bestiality? What about newspapers that have cited your work? How about my offer of a debate? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Again, that's not relevant unless you're saying that you're refusing to debate because you insist on anonymity. I don't see how an audio debate is going to affect that, so why did you refuse? And surely you realise that to ask people to pay $20,000 when they have no legal recourse if you don't attend the debate is completely unreasonable?--[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:17, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Thomas, bring some non-obscure atheists to debate me with reasonable offers to debate me via written debate or pony up the $20,000 to be given to a ECFA certified Christian relief charity that is requested of me to debate obscure atheists who are part of vandal websites. It's that simple. Deal with it and stop whining. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, people won't pay $20,000 to debate with an obscure christian nerd. No whining here.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Yet AGAIN you have avoided the question: why do you impose such ludicrous conditions for a debate then accuse people of cowardice for not meeting them? If you genuinely want to debate atheists why don't you - as an obscure blogger - do so without demanding that they hand over $20,000 with no assurance other than your word that the debate will ever happen? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Oy, Reminder, Keep the discussion civil.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 17:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I'm certainly willing to avoid the word "ludicrous" in future if other participants stop calling people cowards, quarrelsome nerds or socially challenged, and agree to stop questioning the faith of the Christian participants here. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Agreed to avoid calling others 'obscure nerds'--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:35, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::By the way, given that: 1) each day there are 300 less atheists in the world and 80,000 additional people who call themselves Christian each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]) 2) The [[Question evolution! campaign]] will cull the atheists population further.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] - I certainly may up the amount obscure atheists who are part of a vandal website must donate to a Christian relief organization in order for me to debate them. :) And of course, given the way that [[Ben Bernanke]] prints money, inflation is certainly a consideration as well. Also, I do realize it is often difficult to find non-obscure atheists who are willing to debate (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]), but I certainly would look at reasonable debate offers from such individuals. :) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I am offering you a reasonable debate on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. I am not a "quarrelsome atheist" or anything else. We can have a written debate here on conservapedia right now or at an agreed time. Why are you avoiding this offer yet calling everyone else a coward? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::For the same reason as he avoided the offers from Jeeves, Ace McWicked and voiceoftruth2006, I imagine. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::I don't know who those people are...? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Jeeves and Ace McWicked are two members of RW who each offered to pay the required $20,000 for a debate with User:Conservative; even so, he declined. voiceoftruth2006 is a YouTube atheist who offered to debate him two days ago; he ignored the offer. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::Gee, if I had a spare $20,000 I certainly wouldn't be offering it up for an internet debate! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:01, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::It's probably quite safe to offer it to Ken; after all, if history is anything to go by he's not going to accept. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Excellent response, Conservative! Your intelligence level is obviously very, very high. [[User:AverageJoe|AverageJoe]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::How long do you intend to continue avoiding my question? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Oh I give up, it just doesn't make any sense...--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, do you think your comments on this page give a promising preview of your debating skills? Frankly, after reading your non-answers I have difficulties to imagine someone to pony up 2$ for the pleasure to have a written debate with you. But perhaps you can increase your market value by answering my question above:
::''So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well!''
Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::Jeeves and Ace never showed that they had a trustworthy Christian to make the donation which certainly was a condition to debate. I did suggest giving the money to a Bible believing pastor of their choosing, but of course, that never happened. I understand that obscure atheists who are part of a vandal site don't like my debate conditions, but I think it is safe to say that this does not keep me up at nights. :) My back is not against the wall - it is the atheist population that is shrinking the world each day while the conservative Christian population appears to be exploding in numbers each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]). :) Keep squabbling amongst yourselves quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] (see: [[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and women]]), while God keeps expanding the Christian population! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::So Aschlafly isn't a trustworthy Christian? I mean, they DID offer to give the money to him. Anyway you still haven't answered my question, have you? Do you really think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate an obscure blogger, with no legal assurance that the debate will actually take place even after they've paid, then call them cowards when they decline to do so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:32, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, my comments may have been lost on this page so please see [[Talk:Atheism_and_obesity#Reasonable_debate_offer|here]]. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

I'd just like to say that I think Conservative is not a coward and that he would debate if he could find a worthy opponent. Also, it is inappropriate to discuss this issue in public. --[[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] 18:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:That's your opinion, of course, and you're entitled to it. However as Conservative frequently discusses the cowardice of atheists on this site he can hardly complain when his own willingness (or otherwise) to debate crops up, can he? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Thomas, what was stopping Jeeves and Ace from giving the donation to Bible believing pastor of their choosing to give to a Christian relief organization? Were they unable to find Bible believing pastors? Are there no Bible believing pastors in their country or in the world? I am sorry, but their bluff was called and shown to be the farce that it was. Please feel free to blather on today, but don't be surprised if I disregard your blather. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What was stopping them giving the money to Andy Schlafly? I'll tell you what was stopping them giving it to a vicar; they didn't trust you and they wanted a properly witnessed and signed contract that legally committed you to doing the debate once the money had been paid. And you STILL haven't answered my question! You're just an obscure, anonymous blogger; don't you think it's utterly unreasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate you, with no assurance that you'll even attend, then call them cowards for not doing so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 19:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::User:Conservative, if you have the courage of your conviction then debating anyone about what you are sure is right then should be easy. Yet you avoid. Harding filling those who are watching this with confidence. I believe this to be an Encyclopedia where getting to the truth should be paramount. This can only be done by debate and a free exchange of ideas. Not be nit-picking the motives of those who wish to discuss things and come to a valid and provable conclusion[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 03:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
I am going to be frank. The idea of debating obscure atheist members of a vandal site is repugnant to me and I don't see much value in it. It would be the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists which I think is generally a bad practice and to be avoided if possible. I would need to see a lot of good come out of it, hence the requirement that these people donate $20,000 to a Christian relief organization. I also see a lot of trends that don't bode well for atheism both in the Western World and Eastern World so I think the [[decline of atheism]] will continue (deficits causing budget cuts to liberal Western public universities, further decline of the liberal mainstream press audience, tough economic times causing individuals to turn back to God, [[Question evolution! campaign]], explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], etc. etc.). Of course, this further reduces my incentive to want to debate obscure atheists. Lastly, there are some personal things which I put off doing that I wish to attend to. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

:Strange. I thought that converting these atheist by using your superior debating skills would be a kind of reward in itself. How do you intend to help to cut the ''squeak'' of atheists in half if you are unwilling to engage them? Is this the reason that the [[Question Evolution!]] campaign is oriented to churches - which are the most unlikely places to find a atheist to convert him (or her)? And surprisingly, you are willing to speak with the ring-leaders, the ''top terrorists''! If you don't think yourself to be fit to move the heart - and brains - of the ''obscure atheists'', what do you think you can accomplish by speaking to the more famous ones? Oh wait: do you have a secret rhetorical device which can be used only once - and you try to optimize its impact? Sorry, those things work only in the fantasy of little boys plotting in their super-secret tree-houses...

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:01, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
RonLar, I think the type of atheists who are part of vandal websites or the type of atheists who harassed Veritas48 at YouTube are the bottom of the barrel and are not the type of people who are good candidates for engagement. Jesus advised Christians not to cast pearls before swine. Second, I have always claimed that due to the weakness of atheism and the strength of the Christian position that it doesn't take exceptional debating skills to prevail and that is why a 15 year old boy can win debates with adult atheists as can be seen [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSo9hW2dOBo HERE]. Next, in most cases there is a reason why obscure internet atheists from vandal websites are obscure. Few people are interested in what they have to say. Lastly, tracts are designed to be evangelical and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] tracts are no different. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

=== In Short..===
You are saying that [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]], [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]], [[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]], [[User:SharonW|SharonW]], and [[User:ARamis|ARamis]] are vandals/atheists? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 12:09, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:I am getting tired of these false accusations: Proverbs 3:30, ''Do not accuse a man for no reason, when he has done you no harm''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:14, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
== Behaviour of Conservative (again) ==

Andy, Contrary to the wishes of every CP editor who has posted here, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] has added some more disgusting articles about bestiality: [[Bestiality and Sweden]], [[Bestiality and Britain]] and (no joking) [[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]. What's more, he's protected these pages so no other editor can get rid of them. This whole stupid bestiality stunt by Conservative is making CP a complete and utter joke.

1. If I or any other editor blocks him for a short time to make him cool off, he'll simply revert the block. Will you please block him? Give him a week to get those animal images out of his head.

2. Will you please delete his disgusting pages on bestiality?

3. Will you please consider whether or not there's any point in a well-intentioned editor (like me) contributing to an encyclopedia which is just turning into a joke because of the deranged activities of an out-of-control editor who has a high level of administrator privilege? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:16, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:First things first...
::1. You're going to successfully refute the bestiality edits posted. Either the individuals or countries cited have made claims pertaining to their support of bestiality, or they didn't.
::2. You're going to explain how yourself, a recent contributor to this website, can justify the removal of a senior administrator who has been here from the beginning; this explanation is contingent on you being able to satisfy condition number 1. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:37, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::1. These articles run contrary to the founding principles of this site in that they are utterly inappropriate for family viewing.
:::2. Personally I have no interest in "the removal" of User:Conservative, just some of his offensive articles.
:::Karajou, I urge you to move beyond a reflex defense of User:Conservative and to look at the harm being done to the reputation of this site. One of the reasons I have used Conservapedia as a reference instead of Wikipedia is that it doesn't contain references to extreme deviance. These latest articles violate that principle. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:44, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::And what harm is that? What harm is actually being done to this website? What exactly is the harm that this website is engaging in by telling the public about a disgusting sexual practice and those who promote it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:50, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I can help with number one in that [[Bestiality and Britain]] doesn't have any mention of Britian and actually pertains to a British study of Sweden and has nothing to do with Britain - hence should be deleted. Also, [[Atheism and bestiality]] again says nothing of atheists - the only connection is that Peter Singer himself is an atheist. I actually can't check any deeper as I am on a shared network and don't want these articles on the logs. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:45, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::1a. Well, I have no direct information about the claims of bestiality of course, not least because no hard, verifiable data is given in any of the articles Conservative cites.
::::1b. Bestiality is illegal in Britain, unlike in many US states - including some of the most conservative states such as Alabama. Would you like me to add an article about "The USA, conservatives and bestiality" just because some weirdo in Alabama might be doing it with a dog? That makes as much sense as Conservative's stupid articles about atheists and bestiality.
::::2. Because this senior administrator is completely out of control, making a total mockery of the website. Think about it for a microsecond - please... He clearly needs a cooling-off period to stop thinking about such weird stuff, let alone putting on a website which is supposed to be family-friendly. Some of the other senior administrators need to get a grip. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:52, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::You have ''"no direct information about the claims of bestiality"'', by admission, so all of this is just another attack on Conservative by whiners who cannot or will not offer anything beyong whines and rants, and this has been going on in one form or another by select individuals for years. My message is simple: it stops NOW. You're going to respect him, or you're going to leave. Period. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:03, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I am not going to mention Conservative but, Karajou, I would like to point out my comment above - particularly as you said ''the individuals or countries cited have made claims pertaining to their support of bestiality, or they didn't.'' The Britain article says nothing about the practice in Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:12, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::If Conservative - or any other user - is wrong, then you ''politely'' say so, provide evidence to back up your claims, and then drop the subject. That is how it works here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is what I have already done I thought? The [[Bestiality and Britain]] article does not mention bestiality practices in Britain hence needs to be renamed or removed. thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:29, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou, the guiding principles of the site take precedence over everything else here, except the Word of our Lord. I quote from the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]]:
::::::::::''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable"'' - people have already pointed out that "Conservative"'s study is neither of these.
::::::::::''"Any content you create ... must be family-friendly"'' - these articles '''clearly''' are not family-friendly.
:::::::::In other words, these new articles by "Conservative" are in violation of two of the founding principles of this site. By your own standards, they must be deleted. I'm afraid that the onus is upon '''you''' to explain why these articles remain, in violation of the standards defined by the site's owner. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:50, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
I think that it is very disrespectful to keep bringing this debate to Andy talk page. It is obvious that he does not want to get involved in this, and you should respect his decision. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 18:55, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:Max, Is the Bible family friendly? What are your thoughts about these verses of the Bible: Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21 ? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::Well, that is a slightly facetious argument. You can't compare the Bible, and the laws of God, to Conservapedia firstly and secondly Conservapedia, unlike the Bible, has an explicit Family Friendly rule. And please address the fact that [[Bestiality and Britain]] has no mention of Bestiality and Britain. Just to be clear - my quarrel isn't with you ''personally'' but at the poor scholarship. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:53, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Khalid, atheism is madness and immorality is commonly associated with atheism. When people read about topics such atheism, it is not surprising to many people to read about odd/bizarre/weird things and people committing sinful acts. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:58, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::The history of liberal opposition to my articles [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS8rpt1y6lk&feature=related reminds me of someone.] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:12, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Just because someone has problems with your articles doesn't make them a liberal. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 21:14, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Andy, are you reading your Talk page? ==

If so, please read the section above (Behaviour of Conservative) and please take a decision on which way you want CP to go: family-friendly encyclopedia or weirdo blog. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:08, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:That's very black and white. When making an argument try to avoid those.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:16, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Khalid, atheism is madness and immorality is commonly associated with atheism. When people read about topics such atheism, it is not surprising to many people to read about odd/bizarre/weird things and people committing sinful acts. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:58, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Can this section be removed? It is a waste of space since I'm sure Mr. Schlafly reads his own talk page. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 21:16, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Why don't we move this entire discussion to the Community Portal? I am sure Mr. Schlafly doesn't appreciate all the bickering on his talk page.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:23, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== The atheism blues ==

Announcing: [[Essay: The atheism blues|The atheism blues]]. Let the whining, kvetching and crying the blues begin in earnest! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
:I am still waiting for you to accept my Atheism and Obesity debate challenge and the fact that [[Bestiality and Britain]] contains information on Bestiality and Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:06, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-30T04:06:27Z

MaxFletcher: /* The atheism blues */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==

I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]]. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==

Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:

1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].

2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic.

3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being "demonic" offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair "exorcist" commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights.

Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was "demonic" I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.

4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past.

5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics.

6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]].

7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says "Atheism is true because I say so" or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''
:Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]].
:Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in "Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)...."?
:*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''
:I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=888699]
:*''suggested a blocking review board ''
:You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have.
:*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''
:And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE]. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''
:::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it.
:::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.
:::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rude and insulting behaviour ==

Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The same user has now taken to insulting me and questioning MY faith, simply becaue I disagree with him about the best way to oppose evolutionism, and nobody else seems to be making any attempts to curtail his offensive behaviour. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''" (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==
Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is "sysops playing the bully", yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.
:::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception.
:::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.
:::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou & User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the "thin skinned" comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents.
:::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.
:::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say "Thank you, we're not interested," and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying "Goodbye" and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking "no" for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' "our" is also "me" because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,''
::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==a perspective from a pianist==
MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.

But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only "original" content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical "parody" pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop "community," if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.

My whole time here, I've heard it argued, "well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism." In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call "the best of the public," and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.

My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them "faux" answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not "serious accusations" these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a "dig at conservative" i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me "demonic" at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was "Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind." Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is
:'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''
But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==And end to this==

Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, "the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my "castle" and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of "pesterfesting".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you
::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...
::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I found out by checking the block log, which you can find by going to TracyS' userpage and clicking "View full log". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:02, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Ah yes, so I see. Thanks for that. I also notice a rather unsavory comment in there from RobS regarding another sysop. This is starting to look very unsatisfactory. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== User:Conservative ==

I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.

Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.

I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.

A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc.

User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]] Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.

Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The Conservapedian Iduan has expressed some interest in helping refine Conservapedia's blocking policy. He is currently on a summer vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I sent an email to Iduan to find out when his vacation is over. I expect to receive a reply within 2-7 days. In the meantime, people who are going to be on the blocking policy refinement panel may want to look at these two pages: [[User:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] and [[User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:17, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::The panel is convening on 8/17/11: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:59, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

=== A question for the ''ayes'' ===
Would you have voted for '''deleting''' the archives, too? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:04, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes. While there might have been some good points in those discussions, the vast majority was name-calling by troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets. Keeping it around gives a false impression of the site, which is exactly what the troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets want. If any of the discussion in those archives was worthwhile, I'm sure it'll be brought up again in a more orderly fashion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
*it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
*To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative!
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.
*And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar: A few comments: 1) Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) 2) Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth 3) Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy 4) At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive to which I believe could increase its viewership. By the way, how many websites have you considerably added traffic to? My guess is none so your "expert" opinion has little weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:# ''Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.)'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy'' That may be a very promising development...
:# ''At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership.'' In the fast moving world of the internet, such intricate plans are of relatively little value.
:By the way: could you show me to a talk page where you successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? Thanks
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, who said my plan was intricate? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite to the panel so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall ==

A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

I am sending an email to [[User:Iduan]] to determine when he is returning from his vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Just returned; first: sleep; then: back to business.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have blocking rights. May I join?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 17:10, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I added you to list. I don't think there will be any objections to me doing so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==Response to Karajou==
I told Andy yesterday I would respond to these baseless charges today, but spent the better part of the last nine hours blocked after User:Conservative flip-flopped, reverted himself, and unblocked me (I'll accept your apology later, User:Conservative, for inconveniencing me). But to Mr. Karajou: you seem to be of the opinion that,
:'''A little leven leveneth the whole lump.'''
That would be true, if Conservapedia were a monolith, requiring ideological conformity. But it's not, and never has been. Let's not forget the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares,
:'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares#Narrative An enemy hath done this]. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.''' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:29, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Here is the evidence that I am aware of:

1. Both RobS and TracyS edited from the same IP address. After Karajou pointed this out, I personally confirmed this matter.

2. Both were somewhat obsessed with my talk page design in an annoying way despite the fact that Conservapedia says a user's talk page is his/her castle. At the time, I had a system for leaving messages to me. I have since closes my talk page for leaving messages due to RobS and his atheist pals use of pestering tactics.

3. Both were dishonest. For example, RobS claiming he referred to me as demonic at Conservapedia which he never did as he knows the charge was baseless plus he didn't have the guts to do this at Conservapedia, but instead chose to do this at an atheist gutter website that is filled with obscenity and gossip. TracyS claimed he/she was not trying to annoy me about my talk despite using language purposely meant to annoy.

4. Both were annoying and needlessly argumentative.

5. Karajou claims there were multiple sockpuppets of RobS, but I have not personally investigated this matter.

RobS is still an egotist and has learned nothing. It would be a big mistake at this time to give him back his Sysop/Admin rights. He would just foment a lot of useless drama and nonsense. Conservapedia doesn't need RobS the egotist to change its blocking policy and a panel of which he is not a part to refine its blocking policy is far better suited to the task. I invited people to take part in such a panel and some have accepted my invitation to take part in the panel.

I did block RobS earlier for a short spell due to him being disruptive to me posting a notice in this room that would be more constructive than much of the current content which I archived. However, with another Sysops's assistance I was able to send out invitations to the appropriate parties so the notice at the community portal was no longer needed so I unblocked RobS and de-archived the material. Given his past behavior, I see no reason to apologize for any inconvenience this caused RobS.

I will now let RobS give his empty sales pitch on how his desysoping was all a misunderstanding and a mistake on Aschlafly's part. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative, I told Andy yesterday I would respond here, but was prevented by you and the whole day was wasted. Also, I see the whole page & its Archives have been vandalized, as well as other users private user space, so I hesitate in wasting anymore time here. I will however, respond with this:
:'''"pesterfesting"''': this is the term User:Conservative uses for what is commonly refereed to in the outside world as '''"[[Advocacy]]"'''. An advocate is a person who acts on behalf of others who are incapable, or have been prevented from acting on their own behalf. Two examples of advocates would be, (1) [[Andrew Schlafly]], noted attorney, and (2) [[Jesus Christ]], [[savior]] of the [[planet]]. Advocacy is very common in the world of wikis, but I can see where you would have difficultly with the idea. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:57, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, in retrospect, I believe your "pesterfesting" was just a petty and narcissistic post TK power grab which tried to show others that you were the "big man on campus". Second, I am sorry to hear that you couldn't find other things to do besides edit Conservapedia and that your whole day was wasted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun and can be found [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Android App? ==

Does anyone have the link to the android app? I am unable to find it for some strange reason. [[User:JacobSmith|JacobSmith]] 22:05, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am an Android user. Nothing exists and was likely a person having fun with lies.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

== My Testimony ==

I was a liberal atheist. About two weeks ago, I was talking to a Conservative friend of mine and she pointed me to the site conservapedia.com. So I came here and read a few articles. Then read a few more. Then when I noticed registration was open, I signed up, but didn't contribute right away, but I kept reading. I read [[Christian apologetics]], [[Counterexamples to Evolution]], [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]] and some wonderful essays too numerous to list. While reading, I felt...something. Something I haven't felt since I was a child. Yesterday, Sunday Morning, I did something I haven't done in nearly 30 years: I went to church. It was wonderful and I do believe I felt the Holy Spirit. I don't believe I deserve to call myself a Christian yet, but I'm looking forward to next Sunday. :-) Thank you all. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 13:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Summer Paper Gone Bad ==

Summer is drawing to a close and school is beginning again. I have decided to write my essay on the origin of the moon, citing Conservapedia several times. When my teacher (this is a public school) gave me my paper back with the grade an all, he gave me a 62. In addition, he gave me a "good talking to" on not using Wikipedia. I tried to explain him that Conservapedia is different, he just wouldn't listen! He gave me the opportunity to do the paper again using different sources. I don't want to use different sources, because they are most often plagued with bias. My question is simple- how do we separate ourselves from Wikipedia to the general public, and how to we improve our reputation? --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 17:13, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:Wikis are not normally considered good sources for research as they are generally open and can be edited by anyone. And any decent teacher (public school or not) probably won't accept an encyclopedia of any kind (hard copy or online) as a source for a research paper, as they normally want the student to actually do some research. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:06, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::William, the good news is you were docked points for your sources and not for content. That implies that your teacher has an open mind. I'd suggest Answers in Genesis, A Storehouse of Knowledge, Creation Ministries International or look at some of Ray Comfort's books. Of course, these sources are all the work of man and are therefore always biased and flawed. For the truth, you'll want to turn to the Bible. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 19:57, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

== An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly ==

I was [[User:WalterS]] and made an inappropriate comment several months ago. Then two days ago I signed up again under the name JefferyA and tried to make some contributions to the Conservative dictionary. I was banned by [[User:Karajou]] for my actions as WalterS and told that I could come back if I apologized. I am therefore offering my apologies to [[User:Aschlafly]] and [[User:Conservative]]. I am sorry. It was wrong to vandalize your site. I know I don't deserve to stay, but if you can find it within you to allow me to, I would very much appreciate it. God be with you. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 09:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::Your sentiments are appreciated. With the being said, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Schlafly is the sole owner of the website. My articles tend to receive web traffic, but for the most part I create articles and I have blocked some vandals as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:09, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Banned user ==

Conservative recently banned SamCoulter for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' was a legitimate point backed up by a valid reference. Indeed, the same reference has been cited by Conservative on the main page. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:This is a non-starter. Conservative is a senior admin with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of quality edits. This is a meritocracy, David. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:36, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Almost 5% of his "tens of thousands" of quality edits are minor edits. He also created 4 different articles all with the same information as a main article. From what it seemed, SamCoulter was just trying to bring more facts to the table. Three months seems too excessive for something that wasn't even explained as to "why it doesn't belong". [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't agree with Conservative's articles on this topic. That said, I did not get the impression that SamCoulter meant what he posted as a serious contribution, but rather simply as an attempt to "prove a point". He basically [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:SamCoulter&curid=114914&diff=920263&oldid=920262 admitted the same himself, and called himself "juvenile"]. One should consider those facts before drawing any conclusions. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:14, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Nice job taking things out of context. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 00:32, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I do not see how I am doing so. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:55, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::It's like people who quote verses from the Bible (specifically Leviticus). They quote what they want and not its entirety. He admitted what he did was juvenile, but he felt he had to do it that way to bring attention to a topic that Aschlafly appeared to be ignoring. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:04, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::SamCoulter behaved in a manner which, by his own admission, was juvenile, and as a result was blocked. That is the topic being addressed in this section. The issue of those articles, and what position Mr. Schlafly takes or ought to take with respect to them, is a separate discussion which does not belong in this section. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:17, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
Getting back to the point; Conservative banned SamCoulter specifically for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' in question was fully-referenced material, indeed it used the same reference as Conservative had on the main page, and SamCoulter was pretty much quoting what the referenced article stated. The number of edits an admin has made is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether a particular block was justified. A block must be judged according to the specific circumstances of the case, not the past activities of the admin doing the blocking. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 09:26, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== re: User: LeonardS wanting to debate User: Conservative ==

Don't you have ANYTHING to say about my challenge? There's no need to run away; if you don't want to debate a simple "No thank you, I'd rather not" will be quite sufficient. I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of power-crazed vindictive bigot or anything. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you read [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] yet? There is hope and healing available. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:Interesting article. But it is not necessary to be obsessed with you, dear User:Conservative, to spot some inconsistencies between some of your statements and your actions: one can look into the logs of Conservapedia (your log-entries can be found [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Conservative&page=&year=&month=-1 here]). E.g., you stated on 31 July 2011 (and repeatedly after this date):
:::'''''I am not going to be very active at Conservapedia for the near term. '''''
:On the other hand, you performed more than 5,200 logged actions after that date - as many as the next three busiest sysops (Aschlafly, Karajou and Jpatt) '''''together'''''. Generally your behavior doesn't change, whether you announce to have ''a full schedule in the following 90 days'' or not.

:You achieve this remarkable output by contributing to Conservapedia without much pause: over the last three days I couldn't find a period where you have been away from the computer form more than 6 1/2 h: you should try to avoid to have this lack of sleep to have an influence on the quality of your contributions.

:But this is not to uncommon for you: you can go for a nearly a whole day making pauses of half an hour, or for a couple of days without resting for six hours at a time. The only other sysop at Conservapedia who would do the same was TK. Now, it's clear why he showed this pattern - his illness didn't allow him to sleep for more than a precious two, three hours.

:Your fellow sysops failed to spot TK's problems. I'm afraid they keep up this habit of ignoring disturbing signs in other editors...

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::Ronlar, I don't think it's very appropriate for you to be bringing up medical conditions in a public place. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I didn't want to bring up ''medical conditions'', I just made some - as I hope helpful - observations, without offering a diagnosis. BTW: is [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] a medical condition?
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Definitely not in the DSM --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:50, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::RonLar, setting aside whether your observations are correct about my sleep patterns and your apparent obsessiveness about my editing and sleep patterns, I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep and a cursory knowledge of history is all that is needed to know this. But I will make the allowance that perhaps you are an atheist that went to public schools and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself. With that being said, here is a list of famous people in history who didn't need a lot of sleep: [http://amolife.com/personality/great-people-sleep-less.html Famous people who didn't need a lot of sleep]. So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia (see: [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]), you certainly have to take that into account. Plus, to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account. Just out of curiosity why do you think there are some atheists who are very obsessed with myself and Conservapedia? I can assure you the obsession is not one that is mutually shared as the lives of obscure atheist vandal community members are not exactly riveting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::''you maybe an atheist who want to public school and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself.'' I have had enough of your insults Conservative. Just cease it and be respectful of others as commanded: ''And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all ... (2 Timothy 2:24)''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:15, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

User:Conservative, thanks for reacting to my comment. Let's have a look a it - I hope just answering to you won't get me blocked:
*''to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account'' No, there isn't, and there have been examples of this practice: [[User:History]] and [[User:CPanel]] spring to mind. Of course, you could be many - and this would explain you turning down even an audio debate. But you look more honorable seen as a single person:
**in all your challenges you use the ''1st person '''singular''''': ''my articles'', ''my work'', etc. It would be deceitful to create this impression when asking Dawkins, Jillette (and others) to a debate, who must assume that you are a single person. And you won't be that deceptive, I hope?
**it would be lovely to read your ''manual of style'' which would be necessary to keep up your profile. This could be an excerpt:
::{|class="wikitable"
|style "background: lightgrey"|
#Don't use the preview button!
#phrase of the month: '''<s>with regards to</s> <s>obese</s> bestiality''' Use it often!
#Really, don't use the preview button!
…
|}
*''I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep'' An interesting list of famous people you are giving there. But keep in mind that ''sleeping'' is not the only thing which prevents you from editing Conservapedia. Even living today, those celebrities would have difficulties to keep up a 18-hours-a-day pattern of editing, as they would have ''jobs'' (''you certainly have to take that into account'') - Frankly, could Thomas Edison have invented anything if he would have been detracted by the Internet for most of his waking time?
*''So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia […] '' That's the fun of the WikiMedia software - I don't have to log your time, it's done automatically for me...
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:22, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Atheists from a vandal website want to debate User: Conservative ==

Adding cowardice characteristics:

I've just found out 2 major characteristics for cowardice:
*Trying to discredit opponents in view to avoid the confrontation
*Asking for unreasonable conditions and refusing the confrontation if those conditions are not fulfilled.
Would this be acceptable characteristics ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:57, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One thing I do know is that obscure atheists who are members of vandal sites have to actually make a substantial donation to a Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability certified Christian relief organization and have a Bible believing pastor do the transaction for them before I would consider debating them since atheists have a penchant for deception (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). Oh by the way, I may challenge another well known atheist to a debate such as [[Penn Jillette]]. Given that there are 300 less atheists in the world every day and 80,000 more people everyday calling themselves Christian (see: [[Global Christianity]]) and that the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will no doubt create ex-atheists and/or prevent people from becoming atheists in the first place[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I], perhaps it is better to wait so I get more favorable debate terms (I do realize that prominent atheists are often too chicken to debate and of course this trend may continue though (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). :) On the other hand, after the atheist population has been whittled down through conversion to theism, perhaps prominent atheists may be desperate to debate anyone in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:37, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is it a matter of them being too chicken to debate, or do they simply fail to see why they should make a "substantial donation" before debating an anonymous blogger? No offence, but if someone told ME that I'd have to hand over a few thousand dollars before he'd debate me, I'd think he was making excuses. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 14:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Also I don't really get the thing about deception. I mean, I see some guy challenged you to an audio debate. If you arrange the audio hookup then he doesn't appear, that's a victory and it proves your point. If he DOES appear then you get to beat him in the debate. The whole thing with the money does sort of look like a way to get out of challenges, if you look at it from their point of view. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::And what do fat Christians need to do in order to debate you about how CP treats people with weight issues? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:See my response to you at: [[Talk:Atheism and obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:55, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just to confirm - you refuse to discuss with me the way CP demeans obese people by linking them to everything a conservative Christian finds negative (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc.) and refuses to present anyone who is obese in a positive light. (Don't throw health issues into the mix: we both agree with the information on those.) --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:11, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
User:Conservative, you asked for '''17,000$''' (or even '''20,000$''') to be donated to a charity. For this money, one could get a celebrity like R. Dawkins to speak on this matter, in person. Getting this money for a written debate (though not given to you, but to a charity), you most certainly could enter the [[Guinness Book of Records]]! So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If obscure internet atheists who are part of a vandal website don't want to meet my terms, I have no problem with that. The atheism and evolution articles that I largely created (which they cannot find one factual error in) certainly do not want of readership so I am certainly not desperate. I would ask though that they do not whine about the matter like typical socially challenged internet atheist nerds. :) ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men. In short, quarrelsome nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Do you honestly think it's reasonable to expect people to pay $20,000 to debate - in writing, not even live - an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for deciding that they'd rather have a new car? Sorry, I disagree. If you really wanted to debate atheists you wouldn't be doing all this nonsense with the money, and you'd jump at the chance when it was offered. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:53, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Thomas, would you like some cheese with that whine? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:You didn't answer my question. Do you think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for declining to do so? I don't think you actually want to debate atheists, or you'd have taken up the offer from that voiceoftruth guy. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Did I not challenge the atheist Penn Jillette to a debate? I may challenge other non-obscure atheist as well (see comments above). :) By the way, if you could resist the temptation to engage in further whining, I would appreciate it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Penn Jillette is, as you have pointed out, not obscure. Do you expect him to reply to a challenge from an anonymous blogger? He's WAY above needing to worry about that. As far as I can tell here you're the one that's whining, because yet again you've ignored my question about exactly how reasonable it is to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then call them cowards when they don't feel like throwing their money away. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am a Christian and I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:09, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Have not other Christians challenged Penn Jillette to a debate? Has Penn Jillette ever debated a Bible believing Christian? Face it, he evolved into a chicken! (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, I still think you are an atheist and an evolutionist. You certainly whine when I post material unflattering to atheism/atheist community and evolutionism enough. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Stop changing the subject. We're not talking about Penn Jillette; we're talking about YOU. Why do you make such unreasonable demands then accuse people of cowardice for refusing to meet them? To demand $20,000 for a written debate with an obscure blogger is absurd, and it's also dishonest, because even when offered the money you still declined. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::Jesus Christ is my savior, Conservative. Whether you believe me or not is not a concern because ''He'' knows it true. I whine about poor scholarship, I don't care what anyone says about athesits but it must be grounded in ''fact''. Hence I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity right now, right here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:18, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::That sounds like a fair and reasonable debate offer to me. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is all of this really necessary? Yes, it is rather unusual for Conservative to request compensation for engaging in a debate given his lack of celebrity status, but you should still take into account that he's asking for the money to be donated to charity, not paid directly to him. He won't actually gain anything from the offer. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::It's not a matter of where the money GOES; it's the fact that it has to be paid in the first place. User:Conservative is not a prominent figure; he's just an anonymous blogger. The idea that anyone would pay $20,000 to debate him is laughable. Well, ALMOST laughable - an offer has actually been made, which he refused after quickly changing his rules. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:34, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think it's fairly obvious why he wishes to remain anonymous. This page alone shows how much harassment he would face from trolls were he to reveal his identity. The internet isn't a nice place, and people are always on the look out for ways to have fun at another's expense. I believe the term is 'lulz'. He has every right to protect himself from that. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Then he should expect others to do the same and not label them as 'chicken'.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::And he should also accept the fact that if he insists on remaining anonymous nobody's going to be stupid enough to hand over $20,000 to debate him. After all, what recourse do they then have if he fails to participate? If someone's paying that much for a debate it's perfectly reasonable for them to demand a proper contract laying down the conditions, and you can't do that if you don't know who you're meant to be debating. No, it's just a ploy to let him CLAIM he's willing to debate without ever actually having to do it. This was demonstrated when Jeeves at RW offered to pay the money, and User:Conservative still refused to debate him. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:51, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I am willing to debate with you if you agree to give $20,000 to charity. If you are going to refuse my offer, you may be a chicken. I would as well agree that you do not reveal your identity. (No whining in this offer)--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Setting aside the matter of how desirable it is to be a celebrity, it does appear that some people are forgetting the press have quoted/cited my work (Chicago Tribune, St. Peterburg Times, LA Times, etc.). Of course, the Chicago Tribune and St. Petersburg Times quoted my work in a much more favorable light than more liberal press outlets being they are more conservative publications than many press outlets. In addition, gentlemen with doctorates in relevant fields have linked to my work. Of course, many of my atheist detractors are very aware of the press quoting my work, but being jealous, obscure, quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] they certainly are reluctant to admit this fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Can you link to these press outlets and people with doctorates citing your work? I am curious to read them. Also, what about my debate offer on Atheism and Obesity? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::First, I hope the 'atheist nerd' does not refer to me. Second, can you provide the links to these press articles ? Third, I think I am neither jealous, obscure nor quarrelsome... So why would you refuse to debate me ? Unfortunately, I am not wealthy enough to spare $20,000 for a debate but you will agree that lack of money is not a sin.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Irrelevant. We're not talking about press coverage of your work (do you have any links to support that, by the way?) but about the ludicrous conditions you attach to debates, while at the same time claiming that atheists are too scared to debate you. Well they aren't - you've had two offers from atheists in the last 48 hours, plus two more from fellow Christians, all of which you've avoided or refused - and it is dishonest of you to make this claim. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, Veritas48 was a kind and thoughtful Christian apologists at YouTube who was harassed in very inappropriate ways by atheists. [[JP Holding]] had an obsessive atheist call his wife at work. If you think I am going to allow some obscure, socially challenged atheist nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]) to needlessly hassle people with doctorates who like my work and have cited it, that is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Harassment like continually calling them chickens, mocking their weight and farcical accusations bestiality? What about newspapers that have cited your work? How about my offer of a debate? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Again, that's not relevant unless you're saying that you're refusing to debate because you insist on anonymity. I don't see how an audio debate is going to affect that, so why did you refuse? And surely you realise that to ask people to pay $20,000 when they have no legal recourse if you don't attend the debate is completely unreasonable?--[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:17, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Thomas, bring some non-obscure atheists to debate me with reasonable offers to debate me via written debate or pony up the $20,000 to be given to a ECFA certified Christian relief charity that is requested of me to debate obscure atheists who are part of vandal websites. It's that simple. Deal with it and stop whining. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, people won't pay $20,000 to debate with an obscure christian nerd. No whining here.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Yet AGAIN you have avoided the question: why do you impose such ludicrous conditions for a debate then accuse people of cowardice for not meeting them? If you genuinely want to debate atheists why don't you - as an obscure blogger - do so without demanding that they hand over $20,000 with no assurance other than your word that the debate will ever happen? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Oy, Reminder, Keep the discussion civil.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 17:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I'm certainly willing to avoid the word "ludicrous" in future if other participants stop calling people cowards, quarrelsome nerds or socially challenged, and agree to stop questioning the faith of the Christian participants here. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Agreed to avoid calling others 'obscure nerds'--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:35, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::By the way, given that: 1) each day there are 300 less atheists in the world and 80,000 additional people who call themselves Christian each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]) 2) The [[Question evolution! campaign]] will cull the atheists population further.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] - I certainly may up the amount obscure atheists who are part of a vandal website must donate to a Christian relief organization in order for me to debate them. :) And of course, given the way that [[Ben Bernanke]] prints money, inflation is certainly a consideration as well. Also, I do realize it is often difficult to find non-obscure atheists who are willing to debate (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]), but I certainly would look at reasonable debate offers from such individuals. :) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I am offering you a reasonable debate on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. I am not a "quarrelsome atheist" or anything else. We can have a written debate here on conservapedia right now or at an agreed time. Why are you avoiding this offer yet calling everyone else a coward? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::For the same reason as he avoided the offers from Jeeves, Ace McWicked and voiceoftruth2006, I imagine. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::I don't know who those people are...? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Jeeves and Ace McWicked are two members of RW who each offered to pay the required $20,000 for a debate with User:Conservative; even so, he declined. voiceoftruth2006 is a YouTube atheist who offered to debate him two days ago; he ignored the offer. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::Gee, if I had a spare $20,000 I certainly wouldn't be offering it up for an internet debate! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:01, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::It's probably quite safe to offer it to Ken; after all, if history is anything to go by he's not going to accept. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Excellent response, Conservative! Your intelligence level is obviously very, very high. [[User:AverageJoe|AverageJoe]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::How long do you intend to continue avoiding my question? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Oh I give up, it just doesn't make any sense...--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, do you think your comments on this page give a promising preview of your debating skills? Frankly, after reading your non-answers I have difficulties to imagine someone to pony up 2$ for the pleasure to have a written debate with you. But perhaps you can increase your market value by answering my question above:
::''So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well!''
Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::Jeeves and Ace never showed that they had a trustworthy Christian to make the donation which certainly was a condition to debate. I did suggest giving the money to a Bible believing pastor of their choosing, but of course, that never happened. I understand that obscure atheists who are part of a vandal site don't like my debate conditions, but I think it is safe to say that this does not keep me up at nights. :) My back is not against the wall - it is the atheist population that is shrinking the world each day while the conservative Christian population appears to be exploding in numbers each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]). :) Keep squabbling amongst yourselves quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] (see: [[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and women]]), while God keeps expanding the Christian population! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::So Aschlafly isn't a trustworthy Christian? I mean, they DID offer to give the money to him. Anyway you still haven't answered my question, have you? Do you really think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate an obscure blogger, with no legal assurance that the debate will actually take place even after they've paid, then call them cowards when they decline to do so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:32, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, my comments may have been lost on this page so please see [[Talk:Atheism_and_obesity#Reasonable_debate_offer|here]]. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

I'd just like to say that I think Conservative is not a coward and that he would debate if he could find a worthy opponent. Also, it is inappropriate to discuss this issue in public. --[[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] 18:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:That's your opinion, of course, and you're entitled to it. However as Conservative frequently discusses the cowardice of atheists on this site he can hardly complain when his own willingness (or otherwise) to debate crops up, can he? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Thomas, what was stopping Jeeves and Ace from giving the donation to Bible believing pastor of their choosing to give to a Christian relief organization? Were they unable to find Bible believing pastors? Are there no Bible believing pastors in their country or in the world? I am sorry, but their bluff was called and shown to be the farce that it was. Please feel free to blather on today, but don't be surprised if I disregard your blather. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What was stopping them giving the money to Andy Schlafly? I'll tell you what was stopping them giving it to a vicar; they didn't trust you and they wanted a properly witnessed and signed contract that legally committed you to doing the debate once the money had been paid. And you STILL haven't answered my question! You're just an obscure, anonymous blogger; don't you think it's utterly unreasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate you, with no assurance that you'll even attend, then call them cowards for not doing so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 19:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::User:Conservative, if you have the courage of your conviction then debating anyone about what you are sure is right then should be easy. Yet you avoid. Harding filling those who are watching this with confidence. I believe this to be an Encyclopedia where getting to the truth should be paramount. This can only be done by debate and a free exchange of ideas. Not be nit-picking the motives of those who wish to discuss things and come to a valid and provable conclusion[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 03:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
I am going to be frank. The idea of debating obscure atheist members of a vandal site is repugnant to me and I don't see much value in it. It would be the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists which I think is generally a bad practice and to be avoided if possible. I would need to see a lot of good come out of it, hence the requirement that these people donate $20,000 to a Christian relief organization. I also see a lot of trends that don't bode well for atheism both in the Western World and Eastern World so I think the [[decline of atheism]] will continue (deficits causing budget cuts to liberal Western public universities, further decline of the liberal mainstream press audience, tough economic times causing individuals to turn back to God, [[Question evolution! campaign]], explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], etc. etc.). Of course, this further reduces my incentive to want to debate obscure atheists. Lastly, there are some personal things which I put off doing that I wish to attend to. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

:Strange. I thought that converting these atheist by using your superior debating skills would be a kind of reward in itself. How do you intend to help to cut the ''squeak'' of atheists in half if you are unwilling to engage them? Is this the reason that the [[Question Evolution!]] campaign is oriented to churches - which are the most unlikely places to find a atheist to convert him (or her)? And surprisingly, you are willing to speak with the ring-leaders, the ''top terrorists''! If you don't think yourself to be fit to move the heart - and brains - of the ''obscure atheists'', what do you think you can accomplish by speaking to the more famous ones? Oh wait: do you have a secret rhetorical device which can be used only once - and you try to optimize its impact? Sorry, those things work only in the fantasy of little boys plotting in their super-secret tree-houses...

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:01, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
RonLar, I think the type of atheists who are part of vandal websites or the type of atheists who harassed Veritas48 at YouTube are the bottom of the barrel and are not the type of people who are good candidates for engagement. Jesus advised Christians not to cast pearls before swine. Second, I have always claimed that due to the weakness of atheism and the strength of the Christian position that it doesn't take exceptional debating skills to prevail and that is why a 15 year old boy can win debates with adult atheists as can be seen [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSo9hW2dOBo HERE]. Next, in most cases there is a reason why obscure internet atheists from vandal websites are obscure. Few people are interested in what they have to say. Lastly, tracts are designed to be evangelical and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] tracts are no different. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

=== In Short..===
You are saying that [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]], [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]], [[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]], [[User:SharonW|SharonW]], and [[User:ARamis|ARamis]] are vandals/atheists? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 12:09, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:I am getting tired of these false accusations: Proverbs 3:30, ''Do not accuse a man for no reason, when he has done you no harm''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:14, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
== Behaviour of Conservative (again) ==

Andy, Contrary to the wishes of every CP editor who has posted here, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] has added some more disgusting articles about bestiality: [[Bestiality and Sweden]], [[Bestiality and Britain]] and (no joking) [[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]. What's more, he's protected these pages so no other editor can get rid of them. This whole stupid bestiality stunt by Conservative is making CP a complete and utter joke.

1. If I or any other editor blocks him for a short time to make him cool off, he'll simply revert the block. Will you please block him? Give him a week to get those animal images out of his head.

2. Will you please delete his disgusting pages on bestiality?

3. Will you please consider whether or not there's any point in a well-intentioned editor (like me) contributing to an encyclopedia which is just turning into a joke because of the deranged activities of an out-of-control editor who has a high level of administrator privilege? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:16, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:First things first...
::1. You're going to successfully refute the bestiality edits posted. Either the individuals or countries cited have made claims pertaining to their support of bestiality, or they didn't.
::2. You're going to explain how yourself, a recent contributor to this website, can justify the removal of a senior administrator who has been here from the beginning; this explanation is contingent on you being able to satisfy condition number 1. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:37, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::1. These articles run contrary to the founding principles of this site in that they are utterly inappropriate for family viewing.
:::2. Personally I have no interest in "the removal" of User:Conservative, just some of his offensive articles.
:::Karajou, I urge you to move beyond a reflex defense of User:Conservative and to look at the harm being done to the reputation of this site. One of the reasons I have used Conservapedia as a reference instead of Wikipedia is that it doesn't contain references to extreme deviance. These latest articles violate that principle. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:44, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::And what harm is that? What harm is actually being done to this website? What exactly is the harm that this website is engaging in by telling the public about a disgusting sexual practice and those who promote it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:50, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I can help with number one in that [[Bestiality and Britain]] doesn't have any mention of Britian and actually pertains to a British study of Sweden and has nothing to do with Britain - hence should be deleted. Also, [[Atheism and bestiality]] again says nothing of atheists - the only connection is that Peter Singer himself is an atheist. I actually can't check any deeper as I am on a shared network and don't want these articles on the logs. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:45, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::1a. Well, I have no direct information about the claims of bestiality of course, not least because no hard, verifiable data is given in any of the articles Conservative cites.
::::1b. Bestiality is illegal in Britain, unlike in many US states - including some of the most conservative states such as Alabama. Would you like me to add an article about "The USA, conservatives and bestiality" just because some weirdo in Alabama might be doing it with a dog? That makes as much sense as Conservative's stupid articles about atheists and bestiality.
::::2. Because this senior administrator is completely out of control, making a total mockery of the website. Think about it for a microsecond - please... He clearly needs a cooling-off period to stop thinking about such weird stuff, let alone putting on a website which is supposed to be family-friendly. Some of the other senior administrators need to get a grip. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:52, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::You have ''"no direct information about the claims of bestiality"'', by admission, so all of this is just another attack on Conservative by whiners who cannot or will not offer anything beyong whines and rants, and this has been going on in one form or another by select individuals for years. My message is simple: it stops NOW. You're going to respect him, or you're going to leave. Period. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:03, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I am not going to mention Conservative but, Karajou, I would like to point out my comment above - particularly as you said ''the individuals or countries cited have made claims pertaining to their support of bestiality, or they didn't.'' The Britain article says nothing about the practice in Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:12, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::If Conservative - or any other user - is wrong, then you ''politely'' say so, provide evidence to back up your claims, and then drop the subject. That is how it works here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is what I have already done I thought? The [[Bestiality and Britain]] article does not mention bestiality practices in Britain hence needs to be renamed or removed. thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:29, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou, the guiding principles of the site take precedence over everything else here, except the Word of our Lord. I quote from the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]]:
::::::::::''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable"'' - people have already pointed out that "Conservative"'s study is neither of these.
::::::::::''"Any content you create ... must be family-friendly"'' - these articles '''clearly''' are not family-friendly.
:::::::::In other words, these new articles by "Conservative" are in violation of two of the founding principles of this site. By your own standards, they must be deleted. I'm afraid that the onus is upon '''you''' to explain why these articles remain, in violation of the standards defined by the site's owner. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:50, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
I think that it is very disrespectful to keep bringing this debate to Andy talk page. It is obvious that he does not want to get involved in this, and you should respect his decision. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 18:55, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:Max, Is the Bible family friendly? What are your thoughts about these verses of the Bible: Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21 ? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::Well, that is a slightly facetious argument. You can't compare the Bible, and the laws of God, to Conservapedia firstly and secondly Conservapedia, unlike the Bible, has an explicit Family Friendly rule. And please address the fact that [[Bestiality and Britain]] has no mention of Bestiality and Britain. Just to be clear - my quarrel isn't with you ''personally'' but at the poor scholarship. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:53, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Khalid, atheism is madness and immorality is commonly associated with atheism. When people read about topics such atheism, it is not surprising to many people to read about odd/bizarre/weird things and people committing sinful acts. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:58, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::The history of liberal opposition to my articles [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS8rpt1y6lk&feature=related reminds me of someone.] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:12, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Just because someone has problems with your articles doesn't make them a liberal. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 21:14, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Andy, are you reading your Talk page? ==

If so, please read the section above (Behaviour of Conservative) and please take a decision on which way you want CP to go: family-friendly encyclopedia or weirdo blog. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:08, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:That's very black and white. When making an argument try to avoid those.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:16, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Khalid, atheism is madness and immorality is commonly associated with atheism. When people read about topics such atheism, it is not surprising to many people to read about odd/bizarre/weird things and people committing sinful acts. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:58, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Can this section be removed? It is a waste of space since I'm sure Mr. Schlafly reads his own talk page. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 21:16, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Why don't we move this entire discussion to the Community Portal? I am sure Mr. Schlafly doesn't appreciate all the bickering on his talk page.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:23, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== The atheism blues ==

Announcing: [[Essay: The atheism blues|The atheism blues]]. Let the whining, kvetching and crying the blues begin in earnest! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
:I am still waiting for you to accept my Atheism and Obesity debate challenge. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:06, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

Jones v. United States

2011-09-30T02:34:25Z

MaxFletcher:

In '''''Jones v. United States''''', 529 U.S. 848 (2000), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held unanimously that the express terms of the statute and principles of federalism established in ''[[United States v. Lopez]]'', 514 U.S. 549 (1995), required reversal of a conviction for arson of an owner-occupied private residence falls within 18 U.S.C. § 844(i)'s compass.

Construing the statute's text, the Court held that an owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial purpose does not qualify as property "used in" commerce or commerce-affecting activity; arson of such a dwelling, therefore, is not subject to federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). Justice [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]], writing for the Court majority, held that construction of § 844(i) is reinforced by the Court's opinion in ''[[United States v. Lopez]]''.

In a concurrence by Justice [[John Paul Stevens]], which Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] joined, they stated:

:"It also seems appropriate, however, to emphasize the kinship between our well-established presumption against federal pre-emption of state law, see ''Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co.'', 435 U.S. 151, 157, 55 L. Ed. 2d 179, 98 S. Ct. 988 (1978), and our reluctance to "believe Congress intended to authorize federal intervention in local law enforcement in a marginal case such as this." U''nited States v. Altobella'', 442 F.2d 310, 316 (CA7 1971). The fact that petitioner received a sentence of 35 years in prison when the maximum penalty for the comparable state offense was only 10 years, Ind. Code §§ 35-43-1-1, 35-50-2-5 (1993), illustrates how a criminal law like this may effectively displace a policy choice made by the State. Even when Congress has undoubted power to pre-empt local law, we have wisely decided that "unless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal-state balance." ''United States v. Bass'', 404 U.S. 336, 349, 30 L. Ed. 2d 488, 92 S. Ct. 515 (1971). For this reason, I reiterate my firm belief that we should interpret narrowly federal criminal laws that overlap with state authority unless congressional intention to assert its jurisdiction is plain."<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5739.ZC.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Law]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:federalism]]

Talk:Essay: The atheism blues

2011-09-30T02:33:11Z

MaxFletcher:

Ahem* It's atheism with an "i."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:15, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:Why not write a song about the non-atheists who have valid criticisms of your article who attempt to point them out only to be rebuffed and insulted? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:33, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-29T20:14:32Z

MaxFletcher: /* In Short.. */ Do not accuse a man for no reason, when he has done you no harm

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-29T04:15:24Z

MaxFletcher: /* re: User: LeonardS wanting to debate User: Conservative */

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-29T04:15:04Z

MaxFletcher: /* re: User: LeonardS wanting to debate User: Conservative */ Please, ENOUGH of the insults!!!

Talk:Causes of atheism

2011-09-29T04:14:19Z

MaxFletcher: Undo revision 922852 by MaxFletcher (talk)Now I understand...sorry

It is morally superior to attempt to do the right thing from the begining rather than live with the assumption that your sins will be forgiven. {{unsigned|Anyprophet}}

Hmm... this article is better than it used to be, it's more readable and seems more relevant. Ok Conservative. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Surely there is one more reason? ==
There is one major (possible) cause of atheism missing from this page, and it is stated on the main page for atheism (under "Atheism and Why do Atheists State They Disbelieve?"), it goes like this:
The atheist has been either been presented with evidence against or no evidence for the existence of God.
Many prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins et al) claim this is why they don't believe, and is clearly a cause of atheism.

please unlock this page or add this reason.

:What, you expect that Ken - sorry, [[User:Conservative]] - is going to unlock a page he's laid his holy atheist-repelling touch on? Please, read the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]. Especially the ones about how admins have to treat all editors with respect, rather than bullying them. Alternatively, and preferably, get yourself away from this nest of [[User:Conservative|lunatics]]. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

== In Need of Editing ==
Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies. In addition, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Therefore, moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.

This line strikes me as having multiple flaws. First of all, if you follow the link to the Atheism page, nowhere does it cite a 'demonstration' or 'study' that demonstrates moral depravity in the atheist community throughout history. As such, the only real 'support' here are Biblical quotes. These quotes should be cited here instead of linked externally. The last line is also laughable: Therefore, (what is there that's been shown? 3 Biblical quotes?) moral depravity is certainly (such a strong word) one of the prime causes of atheism. This entire sentence is inferred by the article writer with no external referencing and, frankly, doesn't make much sense.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 18:51, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== I feel like I need to say something ==
*The article seems to present only causes based on the assumption that atheism is an incorrect position. It should really present some more neutral causes as well. Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 15:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, really. Maybe some people just don't believe in God? Is that so unreasonable?

>> Yes, it's unreasonable to assume that atheism does not just happen. Scientific evidence and logical reasoning are not sufficient to give rise to atheism. Some event must have caused atheism such as; abusive upbringing, use of antidepressants, partial insanity, certain additives and toxins in food such at BT, ERDA, amoxicilin and other substances known to contribute to improper executive function of the human brain.

These are all neutral cases that show the causation of atheism and prove it is a consequence of mental deficiency.

:No, those are things you say cause atheism. Without documentation, they prove nothing. Why do you seem to have so much trouble accepting the idea that some people, as I do, honestly believe God does not exist? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

== unlock this article ==

unlock this article so I can add a template to it -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Added another reason ==
Personal Tragedy. There are some who have forsaken, quit, or otherwise stopped believing in any religion due to the loss of a loved one, or being crippled or something equally bad.

== Section to add to entry ==

I request that the entry be unlocked to be able to add another section: "Acculturation". Clearly, acculturation is a major cause of atheism. For example, the overwhelming majority of Japanese people do not believe in Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in Kami, an animist pantheon. Likewise, many times more Indians than the entire population of the US, are atheistic in regards to Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in the Hindu pantheon. This is due to the culture within which these people were raised, more than any other factor. [[User:Bricology|Bricology]] 15:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

[[Logical Necessity]]

The question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence of such a being. Some profound remarks were made on this by J. N. Findlay in his article (‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ (Findlay 1949). The heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus ‘There is one and only one God’ would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held, is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The trouble is how to see what this could be.

It might be replied that there are non-trivial necessary existential propositions in mathematics, such as ‘There are infinitely many primes’ which implies of course ‘the number 7 exists’. (We can ignore the unhelpful ‘Something exists’ which is allowed by standard first order logic purely for convenience as few would need to apply logic to discourse about an empty universe for which in any case there are separate rules for determining validity or otherwise.) It is well known that Frege in his Foundations of Arithmetic claimed to reduce arithmetic to logic. However in effect he was using a free logic without ontological commitment. Claims to reduce set theory (and so analysis) to logic are of course even more problematic. Would it help towards an adequate conception of God if we said that God has the sort of existence or non-existence that prime numbers have? One might say ‘not much’. In any case it is dangerous to talk of types of existence because it treats existence as though it was a property. At the time that he wrote his article Findlay was following the logical positivist line that logic and mathematics are alike tautologous. In the case of mathematics this can be seriously questioned. Also most theists would say that prime numbers are too abstract to be compared to God, though perhaps not John Leslie who has argued that God is a principle that brings value into existence (Leslie 1979 and 1989). We are still left with Findlay's challenge as to what a conception of God as a necessary being could be.

One thing that will not differentiate the theist from the atheist is to say that God, if he exists, is necessary in the sense of not being dependent on anything else for his existence. The atheist will say that the universe fits this bill because the universe contains everything that there is and so is not caused by anything else. It is indeed hard to see what an adequate conception of God and his necessary existence could be. For the purposes of this article, let us explore what the relations and lack of relations between atheism and agnosticism could be. Here we shall neglect the requirement of necessary existence and in a later section we shall consider the case of a posteriori arguments for the existence of a mind-like creator of the universe. Of course without the requirement of necessity it raises the intelligent child's question ‘Who made God?’ Still, this might be regarded as inevitable but excusable in an a posteriori argument in which the hypothesis of a purposive creator is put forward and claimed to be justified much in the manner of any scientific hypothesis.

== Really? ==

I just finished reading this article and, really? I'm sorry, but I thought this was Conservapedia, not Encyclopedia Dramatica. I don't see the skeptic wiki calling us "morally depraved", or stupid for believing in God, so why should we do it to them? Also all the sources are biased, and based on personal opinion, making them utterly pointless. - [[User:Mager]]
:You've made some apparently helpful contributions, but know that we don't respond kindly to these kinds of accusations. You're awfully new here to have discovered that there is a vandal site already. If you wish to deny that atheism leaves a person with no rational basis for morality, maybe Wikipedia would be better for you. If you're willing to accept the truth, and get over the shock of being exposed to harsh truth for the first time, then you're welcome to stay here and contribute. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Despite your status as moderator, JacobB, I think Mager has a very valid point here. First, you list Moral Depravity as a cause of atheism, and all of the reasoning from you last post showed moral depravity as a result of atheism. Secondly, the Moral Depravity argument seems only to apply to Christian morals. While atheists may not adhere to strict Christian morals, many of their personal beliefs create a vast overlap in the vast field of ethics. For example, almost all atheists believe it is wrong to kill, based on the human emotion of empathy. Atheists don't want to be killed, so they won't kill others. You may point to instances of violence or mass murder by atheists, but mental problems that lead people to commit atrocious acts of violence exist in all groups of people, regardless of belief system. Take for example the horrible crimes perpetrated by the Spanish dictator Franco. Franco was a staunch Catholic fighting against the atheistic communists. Franco killed thousands, despite his Christian principles. Thus, I propose that while atheists may not abide by Christian morals, almost all people live under many of the same morals, such as not killing or harming others, no matter what system of beliefs they subscribe to.

::Also, this is a talk page. Mager shared a good point, and there is no reason to fire back at him with sarcastic remarks questioning his loyalties to this online encyclopedia. Also, I'm not sure how the age of Mager's account correlates to him being able to find possible errors or things to improve on. Finally, I would like to note that you, Jacob, did nothing to respond to Mager's critiques. Maybe Conservapedia will be able to gain more popularity if the "Talk" page becomes a dialogue in which ideas are tested and questioned rather than a place of dogma. Would you like me to defend myself from being blocked in advance? I'm accusing you of being dogmatic because you make no reference to Mager's points in your response. You solely state that the fact that moral depravity and atheism are inherently linked is true, and any suggestion to the contrary is false. Instead of blocking me, please consider responding to Mager's or my arguments to promote dialogue on the "Talk" page. -AlexanderMonroe
:::::The atheist the Marque De Sade had no feelings of empathy. Secondly, I don't think you convincingly showed that mere feelings (which certainly can include mere sentimentality ) is something you can build morality on. Stalin had feelings. Unfortunately, his feelings often involved lust for power and envy. Third, the atheists certainly don't have a good track record when it comes to charity and mass murder. Apparently, there are a lot of hard hearted atheists and the feelings thing isn't cutting the mustard. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::My whole point is that empathy for most atheists does create a certain level of morality. We can take turns taking pot shots at the other side by naming dictators or murderers who were aligned with the other side's belief system, but in reality most people, in general, are not murderers or criminals. I'm not sure I can convince you that empathy can be an adequate replacement for Christian morality without converting you to atheism. I was raised Catholic under Christian morals. I then reasoned myselfto atheism. I believe that the morals and punishments of Christianity do not bind me, but my actions as a person have not changed much. I realize that if I kill someone, there are reprecussions. I realize that there are reprecussions to even a failure to reciprocate an act of kindness. Based on empathizing with others and understanding the real world consequences of my actions, I have established a pattern of behavior that, for the most part, fits into your set of morals.
::::::::::Why is the per capita donations to charity even when church donations are not counted lower for atheists? Secondly, research shows that atheists exposed to Christianity donate higher than atheists who have not been exposed to Christianiy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:15, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ Christians Give more to Charity than Atheists] by Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] - [[YouTube]] video [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:23, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Causes of atheism

2011-09-29T04:13:52Z

MaxFletcher: Undo revision 922853 by MaxFletcher (talk)

Talk:Causes of atheism

2011-09-29T04:13:01Z

MaxFletcher: /* Really, Ken? */ Enough of the insults, PLEASE!

Talk:Causes of atheism

2011-09-29T04:12:41Z

MaxFletcher: Undo revision 922849 by Conservative (talk)Why is this being reverted? I was about to comment here

Talk:Muslim agenda of the Obama administration

2011-09-29T02:47:27Z

MaxFletcher: /* So, */

I seem to be missing something here since there are a few points I don't understand. First how is being sworn in using his full legal name part of pushing a Muslim agenda? Second how is putting more troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban (a fundamentalist Islamic government) a Muslim policy? [[User:WillB|WillB]] 13:22, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
:Using his full legal name when chastising others for using his name reeks of an agenda different than when he campaigned (worried about labeled Muslim before victory and unconcerned using his middle name after election). More troops to Afghanistan is a good thing in my view. I included it because it has to do with dealing with our Muslim enemies, so it is on his agenda. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:29, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::Ok now I see were I went wrong. I was thinking from the introduction this article was going to focus on what Obama had done that could be seen as pro-Muslim and not include items that can be seen as anti-Muslim (more troops to fight an Islamic government) or that are only tangentially related to Islam (such as not using his middle name at first to try to avoid discrimination over possible Islamic ties in his heritage). Thanks for you quick response [[User:WillB|WillB]] 13:37, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I have changed the opening paragraph so as not to reflect an anti or pro Muslim policy of the Administration's agenda.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:23, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I am confused as to how dispatching more troops to Afghanistan to fight the Islamist Taliban is a 'Muslim policy' exactly? What exaclty does 'Muslim policy' mean - the inference from most of this article is that President Obama's policies are in some way Islamic (such as using his middle, Arabic name)?

: I disagree that the article is painting the policies as Islamic. Alright, the name thing is kind of pushing it, but that's part of a much broader debate across this site. As it stands, the examples all seem to be in chronological order, and many of them are (in my opinion, at least) genuine departures from the previous administration's method of dealing with the Muslim world. Time will tell whether they end up helping or hindering the "Contingency Operation." For now, I've modified the wording in the introduction to further clarify the article's intent.

: And for the record, I think we should remove the point about Obama seeking to hire Muslim congressional staffers. The only story resembling this that I could find from a major news organization said that a collection of the 45 most qualified Muslim Americans had been sent to the White House for consideration as part of a joint effort between Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and The Muslim Congressional Staffers Association. A quote:
:: ''A White House aide confirmed that the administration had received the resumes, noting that it was not unusual for the White House to consider lists of job candidates suggested by constituent groups.''

:: ''"We're still very much in the middle of the [hiring] process, even when it comes to very senior government employees. These things take time, and they're all based on finding the right fit," said the aide, who declined to be identified because he is not authorized to speak publicly for the administration.''<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-muslims29-2009mar29,0,176096.story</ref>
: It's looks like the administration has yet to take action on this. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 22:43, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Create a 'Muslim agenda of the Bush Administration'=) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:49, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

== Obama takes a surprise visit to the troops in Afghanistan. ==

How exactly is visiting the troops fighting a war for our country part of a Muslim agenda? Did GWB reveal his own Muslim agenda when he did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did Nixon reveal his, what, "Asian agenda" with his July 1969 visit to the troops in Vietnam? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 11:03, 4 December 2010 (EST)
:The answer to your questions- yes yes and yes. A visit to Muslim country, where are troops are stationed, with plans to visit Karzai is notable.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:31, 4 December 2010 (EST)

: I think you also have to note the timing of this trip, and what its main purpose was. Obama went on a day when there were many important domestic issues going on (lots on the Congressional agenda, not to mention the dismal jobs report that came out). Additionally, his main purpose was to speak with Karzai, and that didn't happen only because of weather and technical difficulties. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 13:27, 4 December 2010 (EST)

== Somali Pirates ==
Lets say that Obama decided not to rescue the Captain. You could say his agenda was not to engage Muslim pirates. He order the successful release of the Captain. This means his policy or agenda toward Muslim pirates is shoot to kill. The only thing missing on this page with regards is the civilian trial and inprisonment of the remaining pirate. There is a case to be made that his agenda was to dither and that the Navy took it upon themselves to solve the crisis. Either way, there was an agenda here whether you agree.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:10, 31 January 2011 (EST)
:"'''There is a case to be made that his agenda was to dither and that the Navy took it upon themselves to solve the crisis.'''"
:The only thing Obama did in this case was to reiterate that the "troops on the ground" (so to speak) were free to act if they felt the life of the Captain was in immediate danger.

:From the page:
*Obama orders the successful rescue of American Capt. [[Richard Phillips]] from Muslim Somali pirates.

:I think this is poorly worded; Obama simply let his commanders and the men under them ''do as they saw fit,'' that the Captain lived was just a happy coincidence.

:[http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=13351436 That Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse's sentencing hasn't taken place cannot be placed at the feet of Obama just yet.]

:I'm not sure what the "either way" is about since one of the scenarios is based upon a hypothetical.

[[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 15:31, 1 February 2011 (EST)

::Here is my source for the statement "Obama never did give the order to kill the pirates, but the US Navy finally took it upon themselves to do it and rescued the captain." [http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/unlike-the-u-s-president-south-korea-has-no-problem-wasting-eight-somali-muslim-priates/] He took credit and I gave him credit. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:08, 1 February 2011 (EST)

==References==
{{reflist}}

== Weapon sales to Egypt ==

Personally I don't think that allowing the sale of 125 M1-series tanks to Egypt shows a muslim agenda on Borat Osama's part at all. Egypt already has 1,130 M1A1s which they built themselves using a factory and production licence given to them by Ronald Reagan, who I don't think any of us are accusing of being a secret muslim, and Reagan also either sold Egypt, or approved the sale to Egypt by Austria, of over 1,000 M60-series tanks. Arming Egypt and breaking their old dependancy on Soviet equipment and advisers is a long-standing and perfectly sensible US policy. Supplying Egypt with US weapons also helped with the Camp David agreement, which has been a huge boost to Israel's security. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 13:59, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am reverting you. A)This isn't the Muslim agenda of Ronald Reagan B)The sale to Egypt is alarming. Once an ally, now a transitional government opposed to U.S. policies. It's one thing to arm a nation keeping the peace in the region. It's another to arm our enemies like the Muslim brotherhood. As for BO's Libyan announcement, this is his policy, this is his war. It's his agenda that he gets credit for. He calls for a peaceful transition, which is commendable. In reality, there are many deaths in this struggle. The transition has been and will be bloody. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:09, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

== So, ==

What exactly is the point of this article?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:It just seems to be a list of "Things Obama has done that concern people of the Muslim faith". [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2011-09-29T01:07:02Z

MaxFletcher: /* Reasonable debate offer */

[[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1|Archive1]]

== Via several weird redirected talk pages... ==

Ken, you realize the reason Penn won't debate you is that he suspects you are a parodist ''extraordinaire'', right? It's not because he is a bunny, or a burning building, it's because he thinks you edit here to discredit CP. Can you write an essay that proves this wrong?

Best regards,

Huw [[User:Human|Human]] 02:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

:Setting aside whether or not [[Penn Jillette]] offered a good reason, is this often correct?: J. P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason." The reason I ask is due to this: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::Was this comment placed here by accident?
::*It doesn't have to do anything with the comment above.
::*User:Human is blocked indefinitely, so he won't answer timely.
::*Traditionally, new stuff goes to the end of a thread...
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:25, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? On the talk-pages I've seen so far you havn't won any ''discussion''...
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:54, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I think you are an [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno atheist/evolutionist black knight] and can safely be ignored. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of another argument you just lost:A You won't win any debate by just ignoring your opponents: it's like your [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas - what good does it do ''contact Texas churches'', that's not where the atheists you are trying to convert hang out!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::To explain the above in detail: if there were some example of a discussion on a talk page where you, Conservative, have successfully debated an atheist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, you would have no problem to link to it. The fact that you don't do so, but instead choose an [[ad hominem]] as an answer implies that
::- there isn't such a discussion or
::- if there is, you have lost.
::And that's why you were able to lose this simple argument in two sentences - congratulations!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:53, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I find it interesting that members of a certain atheist website incessantly whine about this article. Is there any leader or are there any leaders of that atheist website who could easily shed some poundage? The reason I mention this is that generally speaking the stuck pig squeals the loudest. :) I do know that a significant percentage of the leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement had problems with being overweight (see: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] ). I also know that a number of [[American Atheists]]'s board of directors could benefit by losing some weight as can be seen [http://www.atheists.org/about/Board_of_Directors HERE]. Instead of whining about this article, I do think that some atheists could better spend their time by asking prominent atheist "fat cats" to lose some weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::*A stuck pig squeals - whether it was stuck rightfully or not. You know, sometimes the innocent protest, too.
::::::*You didn't answer my question (''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'') but again went on a tangent.
::::::*BTW, is this the way you intent to ''win'' debates: hinting that your opposite is fat - or that he knows some fat people?
::::::*Try to regard our little exchange of comments as a discussion. Reread it. Reflect on it. Could you answer any of the questions? How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:40, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: *cough* I am a Christian conservative, and I must say that this discussion has made me curious. Conservative, why aren't you just giving this guy examples of debates you've won if you have them? I mean, I don't ''want'' you to be wrong or anything, but this is just confusing, and frankly, this discussion has almost proven to me that RonLar is right and not you, Conservative. ''Why not just release whatever debates you have?'' And RonLar DOES have a fine, perfectly fair question. All he wants is an example of where you debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, or a related topic. That request shouldn't be too hard to fulfill. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't make his question less valid. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 17:18, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::StoryMaker, I will let readers decide if you are a bona fide Christian conservative. Personally, I am skeptical. Next, this talk page is for the [[atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Ah, an ''ad hominem'', again. And still - after a month - the question ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, (successfully) debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'' is unanswered, or, to be more precise, it is implicitly answered '''no'''... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ron, what would you call a "successful" debate? It seems to me that debates rarely finish with one party saying "I was wrong, you have changed my mind", no matter how comprehensively they are out-argued, so perhaps it is unfair to ask Conservative to produce such an example. (This is particularly true online, where obstinacy abounds.) In my view, a truly "successful" debate is one containing absorbing dialog that advances or deepens the understanding of all parties - and examples of these can be found all over Conservapedia talk pages.
:::::::::Perhaps now you could take this case as closed and move on to another issue?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:58, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Nominate for deletion ==

I'd like to propose that this article should be deleted; we could use a shortened version as a section of the "Atheism and health" article. It's just not solid enough to be a standalone article, and frankly it also lets atheists accuse Conservapedia of relying on ad hominems. Are we trying to provide a valuable educational resource or just insult atheists? Some people are far too quick to label atheists as malevolent, insane or abnormal. Well, most of them aren't; they're simply people who don't believe in God and they're generally well educated and intelligent. Some of them are going to take us seriously if we can present good, reasoned arguments. However if the best we can do is to call them fat bum bandits they're just going to laugh at us and so, I'm afraid to say, based on conversations I've had with friends from church about what I've been trying to do here, are a lot of Christians. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, before your suggestion is given merit, I think you need to do a better job at refuting the data in the article plus show that atheist community has adequately addressed their sin problem and the problems sin is causing within their community. By the way SamCoulter, what does the Bible say about atheists and what does the Bible say about fools? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::::As has been pointed out on numerous occasions the data in the article mentions neither atheism nor obesity. As for the atheist community's sin problem, if there IS an atheist community sin isn't a concept that will have any meaning to it so they're not going to see a problem. Sin is going against God's law, so the issue of atheists and their attitude to sin can be fairly easily deduced from that. I know what the bible says about atheists and I know what it says about fools - essentially that they're the same thing - but what do atehists care about what the bible says? They don't care if it says that they're fools and I do believe it's their minds that we should be trying to change here. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:12, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

===An idea===
Why don't we have a vote on whether this should remain an article of be moved to essay? We'd have disqualify users who haven't been here awhile to stop vandals and the like swinging the vote. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm happy to be excluded from that vote because I've only been here a month or so, but I think it's an excellent idea. As an essay, a personal opinion, it's perfectly reasonable. As an encyclopaedia article? Not so much. Conservapedia has massive potential - and I'll say right now that User:Conservative has been quite helpful to me in my efforts to improve it - but this article WOULD be better as an essay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, before you invoke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqZjAybWXk mob rule], why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Firstly I was explicitly against mob rule by stating it should only be trusted user to vote. Second: ''why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first?''....I have! You have ignored it time and time again! The entire page is predicated on a survey '''that doesn't mention atheism or obesity!''' That, sir, is a factual error! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::I have tried having this conversation with you many times - look at some of my comments above '''the Gallup study does not support the conclusion'''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, there is a number of bodies of evidence (some of them very corpulent) that I presented in the 24 pages of material for this article. :) Stop using the [[fallacy of exclusion]] and deal with the entire WEIGHT of evidence that the atheist community has problems with obesity within their community. :) By the way, I do find it telling that you cannot find a single factual error in the 24 page article. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Stop moving the goalposts Conservative. You asked me to find a single error and I have found a single error. It is not a fallacy of exclusion, you asked and I answered. The Gallup Study '''does not''' support your conclusion. That is a single error and that is all you asked me point out. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:29, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, we both know you found nothing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, can you not find ''anything'' positive to write about regarding fat people? You've worked hard to tie us to atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, evolutionists, feminists and Alzheimer's (that I know of), but nothing that a conservative Christian would consider good. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:03, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, the topic of the article is [[Atheism and obesity]]. The question you pose is beyond the scope of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Pardon my confusion about the topic, because this article meanders from '''obesity''' to fat homosexuals to '''neurotic fat people who must be atheists because they obviously have mental and emotional issues''', to various '''"nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections on atheists''', to Chuck Norris talking about the internet, '''to internet atheism, to more "nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections''', back to fat homosexuals, then to fat lesbians, to chubby homosexuals, to fat evolutionists, '''back to neurotic, depressed fat people must be atheists''', to fat people can't get married, to physical ailments fat people get, to fat Alzheimer's patients, to fat people believing in UFOs because they lack self-discipline, to more UFO stuff (seriously, ''UFOs''?), to giving statistics about the growth of Christianity, to Chuck Norris saying fat people are horrid,''' to overcoming obesity by being a Christian, and finally to a list of pages making fun of fat atheists'''. The way I see it, the bolded sections are the only ones with a tenuous connection to the title of this article.

:::::But I believe you answered my question anyway, so I thank you for that. It's really too bad you can't find ''any'' good in people with weight issues. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::I think a lot of Conservative's articles are made to be thought-provoking - to ask you to think about things you might not normally consider. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well, I agree this ''started'' as thought provoking but when finding out that the very source the entire thrust of this article hangs on neither mentions obesity or atheism it stops become thought provoking and becomes fallacious. When this is then pointed out to the author who completely ignores it it becomes an embarrassment. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, when are you going to show 3 things: 1) The entire thrust of the article hangs on the Gallup study. 2) It is wrong to provide data on the very religious 3) There is a marked difference between the non-religious and atheists (I leave this question up to the readers). Seeing as the article has over 20 pages of material with various bodies of data, I think #1 is impossible for you to maintain. On the other hand, being in clear error has never stopped you before. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::How many surveys in this article draw a relation between physical health and religious beliefs? I can only see one - the Gallup Study. Hence the entire premise, that atheism and obesity are somehow correlated, hang on the Gallup study. I am happy to be proven wrong. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please show me where I have been "in clear error" before and I will happily apologise for it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:15, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you need help that I cannot provide and I suggest going to a optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since you cannot show me another study, in this article, relating to health and religiosity, then I will stand by my original comments. I will gladly apologise if wrong but at this stage there is a critical flaw in the article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:45, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

==it must be a joke==
Come on, this article is just nonsense, I clearly suspect Conservative to be a parodist. You cannot just list fifty fat atheist and say that ALL atheists are fat, that's just WRONG! I can easily find 50 fit ahteist and conclude that ALL atheists are fit ! Another interesting fact should be to compare obesity rate in Europe and America and then to compare atheism in Europe and America. More atheists in Europe but more obeses in America ? What should I conclude here ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:16, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Where does the article say all atheists are fat? Secondly, comparing apples to apples is more scientific in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, comparing very religious European people to European atheists. You can also do statistical analysis to measure particular variables. I suggest taking remedial reading classes plus taking a few courses in statistics.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:21, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Obesity by states: [http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html]. Intersting to see that more religious states are those with the more obese people. Conclusion: either religious people are fatter, either atheists living with religious people get fatter than atheists living with atheists. Another study arguing for fatter christians: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.TnJ9RuzDGZ8]. Personnaly I believe that you can be fat or fit whether you are a christian, an atheist, a buddhist or whatever you want.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:35, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::ARamis, the Feinstein study you linked to only showed a correlation between obesity and how religious people were AS YOUNG ADULTS; he didn't check how religious the obese subjects are NOW. Nevertheless as far as its conclusions go it seems valid and it's one more reason why this article should be deleted. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:23, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::That would be great for you if we lived world with one or two variables. Unfortunately for you, we don't. I am used to atheists not understanding statistics and science so I am not upset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Oh Conservative, please explain to me where I failed, please excuse my pride for daring oppose the Conservapedia "facts". Please provide your statistical data (where is it?) that would open my eyes to the Truth.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:56, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::ARamis, you do have a pride issue as demonstrated by your lack of apology for incorrectly declaring the article supposedly said all atheist are fat. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who is reluctant to graciously admit error. Second, my post above dealt with your obesity by states "argument". I see now you posted a link the MSNBC article. Third, the NorthWestern study was already discussed (see above). I have nothing further to add on this point. Lastly, I think its pointless to have discussions with atheists on this matter who refuse to tackle the article in a more comprehensive manner as I see it as merely engaging in [[fallacy of exclusion]] "reasoning". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I want to apology for my agressive behavior last week. I would be glad if we could start this over. I understand that this article does not state that all atheists are fat but it clearly imply that being an atheist give you more chance to being obese. Can you please tell me why you think we cannot compare religion and diet between different countries ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My opinion is that atheists get to say what it is. Your opinion is clearly different; fine, that's your right. However if someone says "I'm an atheist," and you say "Then according to my encyclopaedia of philosophy you believe X" and he replies "Well, I don't," what does that mean? That he's lying, that he's not an atheist or that your encyclopaedia is wrong? Secondly, I never claimed that you DID say social Darwinism is exactly the same as macroevolution; I just pointed out that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolutionary theory, because it doesn't. Finally, we seem to have a different perception on whether or not I've adequately responded to your questions and again that is your right, but it's also mine. No offence, but there are some questions - such as why is this article based on a study that talks about neither atheism nor obesity - that you haven't answered too well yourself. I am NOT trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else here; I am trying to expand Conservapedia into a valuable educational resource that will turn people away from atheism and evolutionism, as are you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, where did a claim that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people? I didn't and I don't think it is fair for you to misrepresent what I have written. For example, certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart. In terms of "intellectual superiority", it all depends on who you are comparing a person to. Plus, we really don't to what degree many health related weight problems are so Conservapedia offering material on the affects of excess weight plus various solutions for many people's problems with being overweight is a public service. I do know that in many cases the health effects of being overweight in terms of symptoms can be reversed to a large degree via weight loss. Also, given that many maladies are progressive in terms of their effects, it is better for people to be educated on the effects of being overweight sooner rather than later. Next, given that I cite responsible sources for my articles in terms of their claims such as medical journals citing research, etc., I see no reason to debate you. If you had claimed that specific statements in my articles were wrong and attempted to offer evidence to the contrary that might be different, but this is not the case plus I have used responsible sources for my articles such as medical journals citing research, etc. Lastly, thanks for the offer to have a phone discussion, but I think I will decline at this time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::No, you haven't actually ''written'' the words that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people, you have simply ''implied'' it. Reread the quote at the top of this section. Look at the articles you've written that associate obesity with things that you don't believe in. Look at the articles you've '''''not''''' written about obesity - the fact that there is an issue within the Christian community; that it's an issue among heterosexuals, etc.; that there is some debate on whether a person can be overweight and still be healthy; that thin people can also be considered to have "normal weight obesity". I haven't argued about the medical information you've provided - it's the ''application'' of that information that I'm protesting. You use "obese" as a pejorative, and that's not right. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:24, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said "between the lines", implied, etc. If my critics don't want to show me where I made a mistake in what I actually wrote then so be it. Secondly, if you want to open a debate page entitled "Can a person be overweight and still be healthy?" then please be my guest. Given the massive amount of research that has been done on the effects of being overweight by the medical community and the biblical admonitions against overeating, I think you face an uphill battle but if you want to fight this battle with those who disagree with you, then so be it. Also, how can being overweight be an issue within a community as you suggest above, but still be healthy? Over in overweight means too much. If there are no adverse effects to being overweight (unhealthy to be overweight), then are they '''over'''weight? If you want to address the central issue, then I suggest you open the debate page I suggested. If you do open such a debate page, I would suggest you provide counter evidence to each of the sources I used on the effects of being overweight (effect on longevity, effects on brain function, etc. etc. etc. ). I do realize that there are health risks associated with being underweight and that health is more than just BMI/weight and that mortality does not necessarily mean quality of life (joint problems associated with being overweight, impaired brain function, etc.), but I don't think you can show me that any of the information I presented were examples of healthy lifestyles being shown as unhealthy. ([[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own and a responsible source seems to have been used. If I did use another Conservapedians BMI source, I used a BMI of over 25 as being overweight. Here is something I just read from a 2010 source: "After analyzing data on 1.46 million mostly white, non-Hispanic adults who participated in 19 long-term studies — each designed to follow participants for between 5 to 28 years — researchers determined that, overall, a BMI (or body mass index, a ratio of height and weight that determines overweight and obesity) between 20.0 and 24.9 was associated with the lowest risk of death in healthy non-smoking adults." [http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity] The [[Mayo Clinic]] which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One last thing, this is a volunteer wiki and people can within reason choose the topics of the articles they write on depending on their interests and what they feel the public might be interested in and use such things as the Conservapedia commandments in order to have a good article (cite sources, etc.). If you want to do the requisite amount of research an write good articles on topics such as [[Heterosexuality and obesity]], etc. etc. then be my guest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, I'm planning two articles: [[Negative stereotypes in society and obesity]] and [[Christian and weight issues]]. The first is prevelant (see [[atheism and obesity]], with its numerous pictures of atheists, dictators, murderers, etc., and not one person who has a positive reputation with Christians], and the second is actually a greater problem than [[atheism and obesity]], given that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings, as you've pointed out. I'm sure there are numerous examples for both articles. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I did some poking around the internet. If you write the articles, I would suggest not titling an article [[Christian and weight issues]] as it does not seem to be a popular search engine search so people will not find your article. Also, based on Google suggestions, here are some more prevalent searches via the search engines if you want to write on these topics: [[Obesity stereotypes]] and [[Christian weight loss]] and [[Christian weight loss programs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:23, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::User:Conservative is right. To maximise viewers, you should either use search-friendly titles such as the ones he suggests, or else create links to your articles from others that will get a lot of search hits (I assume [[Atheism and obesity]] is in this category).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for the concern about the popularity of my proposed articles, but popularity has never been a driving force in my life.

I was going to write these articles; in fact, the one about 'Christians and weight issues' was completed on my hard-drive within hours of posting my last comment on this talk page, complete with a list of prominent/notable Christians who are overweight/obese. I was (and still am) disgusted and angry about the obesity articles that are here on CP, and CP's policy that it is an acceptable conservative/Christian practice to attack someone's appearance when the real issue is a difference in ideology. After stepping away from this issue for several days to cool down, I realized my proposed articles were exactly the same as CP's articles on obesity, and I won't lower myself to that level.

Over the years, I've dealt with mean-spirited, thoughtless, childish, inconsiderate behavior from people due to weight issues. Sometimes it is unintentional; other times, such as in these articles, it is a deliberate action.

You claim these articles are a "public service" to share information on the dangers of obesity. I say hooey to that. If that were truly the case, there would be the single, main article about [[obesity]] on CP, complete with the important information about the associated health risks, and all of these articles attempting to link obesity with atheism/evolution/homosexuality/lesbianism/feminism, etc. wouldn't exist.

I would have a lot more respect if you just came out and '''admitted''' you are using "obese" as an insult directed toward people you don't like. You know it's true, and so do I. If it wasn't deliberate, you would be willing to talk with me about the situation, as I proposed earlier, and there would be more acknowledgement in CP's articles that obesity is an issue that isn't restricted to those people with whom you disagree, but also with religious people, straight people, creationists, etc. Also, there wouldn't be "fat jokes" like 'how much wax would be needed to create an obese atheist museum' showing up on the talk pages. (By the way – ha, ha. Heaven knows I've never heard a variation of ''that'' joke before.)

Do I expect the situation to change? No. Obesity is a too-easily-applied ''ad hominem'', and it appears there is much enjoyment here on CP in using it. But you should '''''strongly''''' consider arguing the ''issues'' (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc. and so forth) instead of taking the easy way out and attacking the person. It's the grown-up thing to do. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:28, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

An interesting comparison of [http://blog.hunch.com/?p=48884 dietary habits]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:That seems like a liberal-run sight trying to make conservatives look unhealthy and unsophisticated. They way it's written appears very deceptive. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 17:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

A lot depends on how you define conservative. Are they for limited government which includes the United States not being the world's policeman? Are they for nation building? Are neoconservatives being counted as conservatives?

For example:
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

Also:
"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." - George Washington

Given the size of the U.S. Federal Government deficit and some Republicans having budget deficits, it seems to me as if the "conservatives" who want the United States to have an overgrown military are not doing a lot of deep thinking plus are not very disciplined and would be more given to making poor dietary choices. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Here is another point: There is no indication that Moses was fat or that kosher diets lead to obesity. Also, the "Kosher Diet is not a weight loss diet per se, but its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, fish and it's lack of...high-fat pork products...can make it an eating plan that supports healthy eating and a healthy relationship to food."[http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/kosher-diet/] Christianity has arguably had the greatest impact on Western Civilization and Christianity is a very conservative religion that says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Mayo Clinic says that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] Jesus, the carpenter and traveling preacher who was not fat, was the founder of Christianity and he ate a kosher diet probably influenced by the Mediterranean diet. Thus, while Jesus is not a conservative in the 20th century political sense, he definitely was more conservative and slimmer than overweight and obese atheists/evolutionists. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, you cannot compare the diet of Jesus to the diet of 21th century evolutionnists. It is 2 different times with completely different diets. And what make you think that Jesus was conservative ? He surely had pretty modern ideas for this time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Also, the Apostle Peter who lived in Rome, probably was not overweight either and many present day Italians incorporate a Mediterranean diet. In addition, "In Europe, Italy was the only country where average weights actually dropped, and, along with France and Switzerland, it's home to some of Europe's slimmest people on average." [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14818710,00.html] I think Penn Jillette needs to ask himself, "What would Jesus or Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eat?" :) Also, unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone is known for his [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]! :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, for Italy, France and Switzerland are countries with very high ratio of atheists, I fail to see how this helps your cause.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the conservative Christian Chuck Norris and the Italian stallion Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone? See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I am slightly confused also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::"I like [[John McCain|McCain]] a lot. A lot. The script that's being written - and the reality - is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with it." - Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry? I still don't understand. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::And Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eats a lot of fish, just like Jesus and the Apostle Peter did. :) [http://www.howcelebsgetfit.com/sylvester-stallone-fitness-training-exercise-and-diet-plan/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults, but given that he incorporates aspects of the Mediterranean diet, he probably generally eats more like Jesus and the Apostle Peter does than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette who professes to respect science. :) I thought medical science, exercise science, and nutritional science were all part of science. :) And of course, the fit Stallone has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:Yes of course, because Italian cuisine - with its prosciutto, cotoletta, Tyrolische Speck, parma ham, cotechini, salami and wide range of meat dishes in a cream or cheese sauce is JUST LIKE the kosher diet of a 1st Century Judean. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:12, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Stallone was born in America. But I still can't see your point. Do you know that there are a lot of atheist in southern Europe who have a Mediterranean diet ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:10, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Pat Tillman didn't lack machismo; neither did Bruce Lee. Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races. George Clooney is very popular with the ladies. All were/are atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:Bruce Lee '''definitely''' had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::[[Bruce Lee|Did he]]? By the way, "...it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." - Hebrews 9:27 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What does that mean ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:12, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::: Stallone also took a lot of human growth hormone and was nearly charged for having it in Australia. Hardly a Biblical diet. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
As I indicated above, "Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults". With that being said, who does you think is in better health: Stallone or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? Who do you think took better care of their health: Jesus or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:23, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Probably hard to tell when basing on mere looks. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Interesting fact: Penn Jillette is NOT the only atheist in the world. Why would you keep focusing on him ? Why don't you talk about other atheists like Bruce Lee Lance Armstrong or any of the multitude of fit atheists (like me for example) ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 00:28, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Penn Jillette is not the only atheist in the world, but he makes up for it in weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, that's a pretty good argument!--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== You know, ==

the debate [[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1#factual|here]] was never finished--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Minor typo ==

My apologies if I'm focusing too much on minor details, but I read this page after noticing it came up in Recent Changes, and I found a ''very'' minor grammatical error. In the Atheism and Health section, a comma is missing, as indicated here:

<blockquote>
In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' '''(comma should go here)''' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation
</blockquote>

As I said, it's a minor issue, but as a professional writer, it's the sort of thing I notice. Thank you very much! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:I just noticed that I myself had a minor typo in my above post, and I apologize. I meant "notice" instead of "noticed." Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for correcting it! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am certainly a fool, and I'm still growing accustomed to Mediawiki's syntax. When I saw the difference link in my watchlist, I saw that the comment was outside the <nowiki>''</nowiki>, and I mistook those for quotes. Thus, my previous comment is irrelevant. Thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reasonable debate offer ==

I wanted remove my offer from the cowardice talkpage because it is getting off-topic and people don't seem very genuine over there. Conservative has been talking a lot about how people (atheists I believe) won't debate him and are too scared to debate in general - I think that's what he is saying anyway, he can be a bit...confusing at times. I am not an atheist nor do I really know anything about science so having a debate about the existence of God or evolution is pointless. But I am willing to debate him on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. We can have a written debate right here on Conservapedia at an agreed upon time. If/When Conservative accepts this we can work out any further rules if required. If Conservative can let me know and if he declines I'd like a reason why that doesn't consist of a non-sequitar. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I still think you are an atheist and evolutionist and you know [[Talk:Cowardice|my policy about debating obscure atheist rather than non-obscure atheist.]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I am '''not''' an atheist and your continued denial of my faith is extremely offensive. I have given you no reason to think I am so please desist in your remarks. My debate offer is very reasonable. Why will you not accept it? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2011-09-29T01:05:27Z

MaxFletcher: /* Reasonable debate offer */

[[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1|Archive1]]

== Via several weird redirected talk pages... ==

Ken, you realize the reason Penn won't debate you is that he suspects you are a parodist ''extraordinaire'', right? It's not because he is a bunny, or a burning building, it's because he thinks you edit here to discredit CP. Can you write an essay that proves this wrong?

Best regards,

Huw [[User:Human|Human]] 02:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

:Setting aside whether or not [[Penn Jillette]] offered a good reason, is this often correct?: J. P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason." The reason I ask is due to this: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::Was this comment placed here by accident?
::*It doesn't have to do anything with the comment above.
::*User:Human is blocked indefinitely, so he won't answer timely.
::*Traditionally, new stuff goes to the end of a thread...
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:25, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? On the talk-pages I've seen so far you havn't won any ''discussion''...
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:54, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I think you are an [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno atheist/evolutionist black knight] and can safely be ignored. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of another argument you just lost:A You won't win any debate by just ignoring your opponents: it's like your [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas - what good does it do ''contact Texas churches'', that's not where the atheists you are trying to convert hang out!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::To explain the above in detail: if there were some example of a discussion on a talk page where you, Conservative, have successfully debated an atheist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, you would have no problem to link to it. The fact that you don't do so, but instead choose an [[ad hominem]] as an answer implies that
::- there isn't such a discussion or
::- if there is, you have lost.
::And that's why you were able to lose this simple argument in two sentences - congratulations!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:53, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I find it interesting that members of a certain atheist website incessantly whine about this article. Is there any leader or are there any leaders of that atheist website who could easily shed some poundage? The reason I mention this is that generally speaking the stuck pig squeals the loudest. :) I do know that a significant percentage of the leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement had problems with being overweight (see: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] ). I also know that a number of [[American Atheists]]'s board of directors could benefit by losing some weight as can be seen [http://www.atheists.org/about/Board_of_Directors HERE]. Instead of whining about this article, I do think that some atheists could better spend their time by asking prominent atheist "fat cats" to lose some weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::*A stuck pig squeals - whether it was stuck rightfully or not. You know, sometimes the innocent protest, too.
::::::*You didn't answer my question (''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'') but again went on a tangent.
::::::*BTW, is this the way you intent to ''win'' debates: hinting that your opposite is fat - or that he knows some fat people?
::::::*Try to regard our little exchange of comments as a discussion. Reread it. Reflect on it. Could you answer any of the questions? How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:40, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: *cough* I am a Christian conservative, and I must say that this discussion has made me curious. Conservative, why aren't you just giving this guy examples of debates you've won if you have them? I mean, I don't ''want'' you to be wrong or anything, but this is just confusing, and frankly, this discussion has almost proven to me that RonLar is right and not you, Conservative. ''Why not just release whatever debates you have?'' And RonLar DOES have a fine, perfectly fair question. All he wants is an example of where you debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, or a related topic. That request shouldn't be too hard to fulfill. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't make his question less valid. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 17:18, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::StoryMaker, I will let readers decide if you are a bona fide Christian conservative. Personally, I am skeptical. Next, this talk page is for the [[atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Ah, an ''ad hominem'', again. And still - after a month - the question ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, (successfully) debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'' is unanswered, or, to be more precise, it is implicitly answered '''no'''... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ron, what would you call a "successful" debate? It seems to me that debates rarely finish with one party saying "I was wrong, you have changed my mind", no matter how comprehensively they are out-argued, so perhaps it is unfair to ask Conservative to produce such an example. (This is particularly true online, where obstinacy abounds.) In my view, a truly "successful" debate is one containing absorbing dialog that advances or deepens the understanding of all parties - and examples of these can be found all over Conservapedia talk pages.
:::::::::Perhaps now you could take this case as closed and move on to another issue?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:58, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Nominate for deletion ==

I'd like to propose that this article should be deleted; we could use a shortened version as a section of the "Atheism and health" article. It's just not solid enough to be a standalone article, and frankly it also lets atheists accuse Conservapedia of relying on ad hominems. Are we trying to provide a valuable educational resource or just insult atheists? Some people are far too quick to label atheists as malevolent, insane or abnormal. Well, most of them aren't; they're simply people who don't believe in God and they're generally well educated and intelligent. Some of them are going to take us seriously if we can present good, reasoned arguments. However if the best we can do is to call them fat bum bandits they're just going to laugh at us and so, I'm afraid to say, based on conversations I've had with friends from church about what I've been trying to do here, are a lot of Christians. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, before your suggestion is given merit, I think you need to do a better job at refuting the data in the article plus show that atheist community has adequately addressed their sin problem and the problems sin is causing within their community. By the way SamCoulter, what does the Bible say about atheists and what does the Bible say about fools? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::::As has been pointed out on numerous occasions the data in the article mentions neither atheism nor obesity. As for the atheist community's sin problem, if there IS an atheist community sin isn't a concept that will have any meaning to it so they're not going to see a problem. Sin is going against God's law, so the issue of atheists and their attitude to sin can be fairly easily deduced from that. I know what the bible says about atheists and I know what it says about fools - essentially that they're the same thing - but what do atehists care about what the bible says? They don't care if it says that they're fools and I do believe it's their minds that we should be trying to change here. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:12, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

===An idea===
Why don't we have a vote on whether this should remain an article of be moved to essay? We'd have disqualify users who haven't been here awhile to stop vandals and the like swinging the vote. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm happy to be excluded from that vote because I've only been here a month or so, but I think it's an excellent idea. As an essay, a personal opinion, it's perfectly reasonable. As an encyclopaedia article? Not so much. Conservapedia has massive potential - and I'll say right now that User:Conservative has been quite helpful to me in my efforts to improve it - but this article WOULD be better as an essay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, before you invoke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqZjAybWXk mob rule], why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Firstly I was explicitly against mob rule by stating it should only be trusted user to vote. Second: ''why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first?''....I have! You have ignored it time and time again! The entire page is predicated on a survey '''that doesn't mention atheism or obesity!''' That, sir, is a factual error! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::I have tried having this conversation with you many times - look at some of my comments above '''the Gallup study does not support the conclusion'''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, there is a number of bodies of evidence (some of them very corpulent) that I presented in the 24 pages of material for this article. :) Stop using the [[fallacy of exclusion]] and deal with the entire WEIGHT of evidence that the atheist community has problems with obesity within their community. :) By the way, I do find it telling that you cannot find a single factual error in the 24 page article. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Stop moving the goalposts Conservative. You asked me to find a single error and I have found a single error. It is not a fallacy of exclusion, you asked and I answered. The Gallup Study '''does not''' support your conclusion. That is a single error and that is all you asked me point out. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:29, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, we both know you found nothing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, can you not find ''anything'' positive to write about regarding fat people? You've worked hard to tie us to atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, evolutionists, feminists and Alzheimer's (that I know of), but nothing that a conservative Christian would consider good. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:03, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, the topic of the article is [[Atheism and obesity]]. The question you pose is beyond the scope of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Pardon my confusion about the topic, because this article meanders from '''obesity''' to fat homosexuals to '''neurotic fat people who must be atheists because they obviously have mental and emotional issues''', to various '''"nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections on atheists''', to Chuck Norris talking about the internet, '''to internet atheism, to more "nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections''', back to fat homosexuals, then to fat lesbians, to chubby homosexuals, to fat evolutionists, '''back to neurotic, depressed fat people must be atheists''', to fat people can't get married, to physical ailments fat people get, to fat Alzheimer's patients, to fat people believing in UFOs because they lack self-discipline, to more UFO stuff (seriously, ''UFOs''?), to giving statistics about the growth of Christianity, to Chuck Norris saying fat people are horrid,''' to overcoming obesity by being a Christian, and finally to a list of pages making fun of fat atheists'''. The way I see it, the bolded sections are the only ones with a tenuous connection to the title of this article.

:::::But I believe you answered my question anyway, so I thank you for that. It's really too bad you can't find ''any'' good in people with weight issues. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::I think a lot of Conservative's articles are made to be thought-provoking - to ask you to think about things you might not normally consider. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well, I agree this ''started'' as thought provoking but when finding out that the very source the entire thrust of this article hangs on neither mentions obesity or atheism it stops become thought provoking and becomes fallacious. When this is then pointed out to the author who completely ignores it it becomes an embarrassment. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, when are you going to show 3 things: 1) The entire thrust of the article hangs on the Gallup study. 2) It is wrong to provide data on the very religious 3) There is a marked difference between the non-religious and atheists (I leave this question up to the readers). Seeing as the article has over 20 pages of material with various bodies of data, I think #1 is impossible for you to maintain. On the other hand, being in clear error has never stopped you before. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::How many surveys in this article draw a relation between physical health and religious beliefs? I can only see one - the Gallup Study. Hence the entire premise, that atheism and obesity are somehow correlated, hang on the Gallup study. I am happy to be proven wrong. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please show me where I have been "in clear error" before and I will happily apologise for it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:15, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you need help that I cannot provide and I suggest going to a optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since you cannot show me another study, in this article, relating to health and religiosity, then I will stand by my original comments. I will gladly apologise if wrong but at this stage there is a critical flaw in the article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:45, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

==it must be a joke==
Come on, this article is just nonsense, I clearly suspect Conservative to be a parodist. You cannot just list fifty fat atheist and say that ALL atheists are fat, that's just WRONG! I can easily find 50 fit ahteist and conclude that ALL atheists are fit ! Another interesting fact should be to compare obesity rate in Europe and America and then to compare atheism in Europe and America. More atheists in Europe but more obeses in America ? What should I conclude here ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:16, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Where does the article say all atheists are fat? Secondly, comparing apples to apples is more scientific in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, comparing very religious European people to European atheists. You can also do statistical analysis to measure particular variables. I suggest taking remedial reading classes plus taking a few courses in statistics.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:21, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Obesity by states: [http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html]. Intersting to see that more religious states are those with the more obese people. Conclusion: either religious people are fatter, either atheists living with religious people get fatter than atheists living with atheists. Another study arguing for fatter christians: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.TnJ9RuzDGZ8]. Personnaly I believe that you can be fat or fit whether you are a christian, an atheist, a buddhist or whatever you want.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:35, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::ARamis, the Feinstein study you linked to only showed a correlation between obesity and how religious people were AS YOUNG ADULTS; he didn't check how religious the obese subjects are NOW. Nevertheless as far as its conclusions go it seems valid and it's one more reason why this article should be deleted. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:23, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::That would be great for you if we lived world with one or two variables. Unfortunately for you, we don't. I am used to atheists not understanding statistics and science so I am not upset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Oh Conservative, please explain to me where I failed, please excuse my pride for daring oppose the Conservapedia "facts". Please provide your statistical data (where is it?) that would open my eyes to the Truth.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:56, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::ARamis, you do have a pride issue as demonstrated by your lack of apology for incorrectly declaring the article supposedly said all atheist are fat. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who is reluctant to graciously admit error. Second, my post above dealt with your obesity by states "argument". I see now you posted a link the MSNBC article. Third, the NorthWestern study was already discussed (see above). I have nothing further to add on this point. Lastly, I think its pointless to have discussions with atheists on this matter who refuse to tackle the article in a more comprehensive manner as I see it as merely engaging in [[fallacy of exclusion]] "reasoning". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I want to apology for my agressive behavior last week. I would be glad if we could start this over. I understand that this article does not state that all atheists are fat but it clearly imply that being an atheist give you more chance to being obese. Can you please tell me why you think we cannot compare religion and diet between different countries ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My opinion is that atheists get to say what it is. Your opinion is clearly different; fine, that's your right. However if someone says "I'm an atheist," and you say "Then according to my encyclopaedia of philosophy you believe X" and he replies "Well, I don't," what does that mean? That he's lying, that he's not an atheist or that your encyclopaedia is wrong? Secondly, I never claimed that you DID say social Darwinism is exactly the same as macroevolution; I just pointed out that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolutionary theory, because it doesn't. Finally, we seem to have a different perception on whether or not I've adequately responded to your questions and again that is your right, but it's also mine. No offence, but there are some questions - such as why is this article based on a study that talks about neither atheism nor obesity - that you haven't answered too well yourself. I am NOT trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else here; I am trying to expand Conservapedia into a valuable educational resource that will turn people away from atheism and evolutionism, as are you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, where did a claim that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people? I didn't and I don't think it is fair for you to misrepresent what I have written. For example, certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart. In terms of "intellectual superiority", it all depends on who you are comparing a person to. Plus, we really don't to what degree many health related weight problems are so Conservapedia offering material on the affects of excess weight plus various solutions for many people's problems with being overweight is a public service. I do know that in many cases the health effects of being overweight in terms of symptoms can be reversed to a large degree via weight loss. Also, given that many maladies are progressive in terms of their effects, it is better for people to be educated on the effects of being overweight sooner rather than later. Next, given that I cite responsible sources for my articles in terms of their claims such as medical journals citing research, etc., I see no reason to debate you. If you had claimed that specific statements in my articles were wrong and attempted to offer evidence to the contrary that might be different, but this is not the case plus I have used responsible sources for my articles such as medical journals citing research, etc. Lastly, thanks for the offer to have a phone discussion, but I think I will decline at this time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::No, you haven't actually ''written'' the words that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people, you have simply ''implied'' it. Reread the quote at the top of this section. Look at the articles you've written that associate obesity with things that you don't believe in. Look at the articles you've '''''not''''' written about obesity - the fact that there is an issue within the Christian community; that it's an issue among heterosexuals, etc.; that there is some debate on whether a person can be overweight and still be healthy; that thin people can also be considered to have "normal weight obesity". I haven't argued about the medical information you've provided - it's the ''application'' of that information that I'm protesting. You use "obese" as a pejorative, and that's not right. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:24, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said "between the lines", implied, etc. If my critics don't want to show me where I made a mistake in what I actually wrote then so be it. Secondly, if you want to open a debate page entitled "Can a person be overweight and still be healthy?" then please be my guest. Given the massive amount of research that has been done on the effects of being overweight by the medical community and the biblical admonitions against overeating, I think you face an uphill battle but if you want to fight this battle with those who disagree with you, then so be it. Also, how can being overweight be an issue within a community as you suggest above, but still be healthy? Over in overweight means too much. If there are no adverse effects to being overweight (unhealthy to be overweight), then are they '''over'''weight? If you want to address the central issue, then I suggest you open the debate page I suggested. If you do open such a debate page, I would suggest you provide counter evidence to each of the sources I used on the effects of being overweight (effect on longevity, effects on brain function, etc. etc. etc. ). I do realize that there are health risks associated with being underweight and that health is more than just BMI/weight and that mortality does not necessarily mean quality of life (joint problems associated with being overweight, impaired brain function, etc.), but I don't think you can show me that any of the information I presented were examples of healthy lifestyles being shown as unhealthy. ([[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own and a responsible source seems to have been used. If I did use another Conservapedians BMI source, I used a BMI of over 25 as being overweight. Here is something I just read from a 2010 source: "After analyzing data on 1.46 million mostly white, non-Hispanic adults who participated in 19 long-term studies — each designed to follow participants for between 5 to 28 years — researchers determined that, overall, a BMI (or body mass index, a ratio of height and weight that determines overweight and obesity) between 20.0 and 24.9 was associated with the lowest risk of death in healthy non-smoking adults." [http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity] The [[Mayo Clinic]] which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One last thing, this is a volunteer wiki and people can within reason choose the topics of the articles they write on depending on their interests and what they feel the public might be interested in and use such things as the Conservapedia commandments in order to have a good article (cite sources, etc.). If you want to do the requisite amount of research an write good articles on topics such as [[Heterosexuality and obesity]], etc. etc. then be my guest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, I'm planning two articles: [[Negative stereotypes in society and obesity]] and [[Christian and weight issues]]. The first is prevelant (see [[atheism and obesity]], with its numerous pictures of atheists, dictators, murderers, etc., and not one person who has a positive reputation with Christians], and the second is actually a greater problem than [[atheism and obesity]], given that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings, as you've pointed out. I'm sure there are numerous examples for both articles. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I did some poking around the internet. If you write the articles, I would suggest not titling an article [[Christian and weight issues]] as it does not seem to be a popular search engine search so people will not find your article. Also, based on Google suggestions, here are some more prevalent searches via the search engines if you want to write on these topics: [[Obesity stereotypes]] and [[Christian weight loss]] and [[Christian weight loss programs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:23, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::User:Conservative is right. To maximise viewers, you should either use search-friendly titles such as the ones he suggests, or else create links to your articles from others that will get a lot of search hits (I assume [[Atheism and obesity]] is in this category).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for the concern about the popularity of my proposed articles, but popularity has never been a driving force in my life.

I was going to write these articles; in fact, the one about 'Christians and weight issues' was completed on my hard-drive within hours of posting my last comment on this talk page, complete with a list of prominent/notable Christians who are overweight/obese. I was (and still am) disgusted and angry about the obesity articles that are here on CP, and CP's policy that it is an acceptable conservative/Christian practice to attack someone's appearance when the real issue is a difference in ideology. After stepping away from this issue for several days to cool down, I realized my proposed articles were exactly the same as CP's articles on obesity, and I won't lower myself to that level.

Over the years, I've dealt with mean-spirited, thoughtless, childish, inconsiderate behavior from people due to weight issues. Sometimes it is unintentional; other times, such as in these articles, it is a deliberate action.

You claim these articles are a "public service" to share information on the dangers of obesity. I say hooey to that. If that were truly the case, there would be the single, main article about [[obesity]] on CP, complete with the important information about the associated health risks, and all of these articles attempting to link obesity with atheism/evolution/homosexuality/lesbianism/feminism, etc. wouldn't exist.

I would have a lot more respect if you just came out and '''admitted''' you are using "obese" as an insult directed toward people you don't like. You know it's true, and so do I. If it wasn't deliberate, you would be willing to talk with me about the situation, as I proposed earlier, and there would be more acknowledgement in CP's articles that obesity is an issue that isn't restricted to those people with whom you disagree, but also with religious people, straight people, creationists, etc. Also, there wouldn't be "fat jokes" like 'how much wax would be needed to create an obese atheist museum' showing up on the talk pages. (By the way – ha, ha. Heaven knows I've never heard a variation of ''that'' joke before.)

Do I expect the situation to change? No. Obesity is a too-easily-applied ''ad hominem'', and it appears there is much enjoyment here on CP in using it. But you should '''''strongly''''' consider arguing the ''issues'' (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc. and so forth) instead of taking the easy way out and attacking the person. It's the grown-up thing to do. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:28, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

An interesting comparison of [http://blog.hunch.com/?p=48884 dietary habits]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:That seems like a liberal-run sight trying to make conservatives look unhealthy and unsophisticated. They way it's written appears very deceptive. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 17:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

A lot depends on how you define conservative. Are they for limited government which includes the United States not being the world's policeman? Are they for nation building? Are neoconservatives being counted as conservatives?

For example:
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

Also:
"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." - George Washington

Given the size of the U.S. Federal Government deficit and some Republicans having budget deficits, it seems to me as if the "conservatives" who want the United States to have an overgrown military are not doing a lot of deep thinking plus are not very disciplined and would be more given to making poor dietary choices. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Here is another point: There is no indication that Moses was fat or that kosher diets lead to obesity. Also, the "Kosher Diet is not a weight loss diet per se, but its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, fish and it's lack of...high-fat pork products...can make it an eating plan that supports healthy eating and a healthy relationship to food."[http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/kosher-diet/] Christianity has arguably had the greatest impact on Western Civilization and Christianity is a very conservative religion that says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Mayo Clinic says that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] Jesus, the carpenter and traveling preacher who was not fat, was the founder of Christianity and he ate a kosher diet probably influenced by the Mediterranean diet. Thus, while Jesus is not a conservative in the 20th century political sense, he definitely was more conservative and slimmer than overweight and obese atheists/evolutionists. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, you cannot compare the diet of Jesus to the diet of 21th century evolutionnists. It is 2 different times with completely different diets. And what make you think that Jesus was conservative ? He surely had pretty modern ideas for this time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Also, the Apostle Peter who lived in Rome, probably was not overweight either and many present day Italians incorporate a Mediterranean diet. In addition, "In Europe, Italy was the only country where average weights actually dropped, and, along with France and Switzerland, it's home to some of Europe's slimmest people on average." [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14818710,00.html] I think Penn Jillette needs to ask himself, "What would Jesus or Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eat?" :) Also, unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone is known for his [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]! :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, for Italy, France and Switzerland are countries with very high ratio of atheists, I fail to see how this helps your cause.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the conservative Christian Chuck Norris and the Italian stallion Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone? See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I am slightly confused also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::"I like [[John McCain|McCain]] a lot. A lot. The script that's being written - and the reality - is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with it." - Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry? I still don't understand. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::And Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eats a lot of fish, just like Jesus and the Apostle Peter did. :) [http://www.howcelebsgetfit.com/sylvester-stallone-fitness-training-exercise-and-diet-plan/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults, but given that he incorporates aspects of the Mediterranean diet, he probably generally eats more like Jesus and the Apostle Peter does than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette who professes to respect science. :) I thought medical science, exercise science, and nutritional science were all part of science. :) And of course, the fit Stallone has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:Yes of course, because Italian cuisine - with its prosciutto, cotoletta, Tyrolische Speck, parma ham, cotechini, salami and wide range of meat dishes in a cream or cheese sauce is JUST LIKE the kosher diet of a 1st Century Judean. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:12, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Stallone was born in America. But I still can't see your point. Do you know that there are a lot of atheist in southern Europe who have a Mediterranean diet ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:10, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Pat Tillman didn't lack machismo; neither did Bruce Lee. Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races. George Clooney is very popular with the ladies. All were/are atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:Bruce Lee '''definitely''' had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::[[Bruce Lee|Did he]]? By the way, "...it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." - Hebrews 9:27 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What does that mean ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:12, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::: Stallone also took a lot of human growth hormone and was nearly charged for having it in Australia. Hardly a Biblical diet. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
As I indicated above, "Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults". With that being said, who does you think is in better health: Stallone or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? Who do you think took better care of their health: Jesus or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:23, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Probably hard to tell when basing on mere looks. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Interesting fact: Penn Jillette is NOT the only atheist in the world. Why would you keep focusing on him ? Why don't you talk about other atheists like Bruce Lee Lance Armstrong or any of the multitude of fit atheists (like me for example) ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 00:28, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Penn Jillette is not the only atheist in the world, but he makes up for it in weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, that's a pretty good argument!--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== You know, ==

the debate [[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1#factual|here]] was never finished--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Minor typo ==

My apologies if I'm focusing too much on minor details, but I read this page after noticing it came up in Recent Changes, and I found a ''very'' minor grammatical error. In the Atheism and Health section, a comma is missing, as indicated here:

<blockquote>
In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' '''(comma should go here)''' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation
</blockquote>

As I said, it's a minor issue, but as a professional writer, it's the sort of thing I notice. Thank you very much! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:I just noticed that I myself had a minor typo in my above post, and I apologize. I meant "notice" instead of "noticed." Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for correcting it! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am certainly a fool, and I'm still growing accustomed to Mediawiki's syntax. When I saw the difference link in my watchlist, I saw that the comment was outside the <nowiki>''</nowiki>, and I mistook those for quotes. Thus, my previous comment is irrelevant. Thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reasonable debate offer ==

I wanted remove my offer from the cowardice talkpage because it is getting off-topic and people don't seem very genuine over there. Conservative has been talking a lot about how people (atheists I believe) won't debate him and are too scared to debate in general - I think that's what he is saying anyway, he can be a bit...confusing at times. I am not an atheist nor do I really know anything about science so having a debate about the existence of God or evolution is pointless. But I am willing to debate him on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. We can have a written debate right here on Conservapedia at an agreed upon time. If/When Conservative accepts this we can work out any further rules if required. If Conservative can let me know and if he declines I'd like a reason why that doesn't consist of a non-sequitar. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I still think you are an atheist and evolutionist and you know [[Talk:Cowardice|my policy about debating obscure atheist rather than non-obscure atheist.]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I am '''not'''' an atheist and your continued denial of my faith is extremely offensive. I have given you no reason to think I am. My debate over is very reasonable. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

User talk:TennaK

2011-09-29T00:52:11Z

MaxFletcher:

{{welcome}}

Sorry about the hasty block! I just saw a revert reason for your contribution and read the diff wrong apparently, but you have been restored now. Please enjoy editing. Sorry!!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:28, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:I didn't even notice until you said something here! My earlier edit wasn't parody, I'll find some resources to back it up. --[[User:TennaK|TennaK]] 20:41, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::Please do. Those pages seem to be hotbeds for parody and heated discussion among other things, based on my experiences here. Also check out the Guidelines on the welcome template, so you will be aware of [[90/10]] (which some here seem to have a problem with) and citing sources. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Also if adding a new counter example to a page please note there is a counter at the top detailing how many counterexamples there are. Remember to change it! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2011-09-29T00:23:52Z

MaxFletcher: /* Reasonable debate offer */ ?

User talk:TennaK

2011-09-28T22:38:50Z

MaxFletcher: Created page with "{{welcome}}"

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2011-09-28T22:00:01Z

MaxFletcher: /* Reasonable debate offer */ new section