Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Gardasil

2007-06-20T17:43:56Z

RDre: rv. The recommendations of the JCVI is big news, it will lead to widespread immunisation in Britain.

'''Gardasil''', the recently-available HPV vaccine, protects against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of the human papillomavirus (HPV), which are sexually transmitted diseases. These strains of HPV have been associated with 70% of cervical cancer cases and may also play a role in the development of other types of cancer <ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>. In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a few thousand patients who had received the vaccine (including perhaps only a few hundred or less young girls).

The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.). The vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.[http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf]

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are not known and there have not been any long-term studies. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine. Between July 2006 and January 2007, there were 82 reports of adverse events filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System ([[VAERS]]) following the receipt of the vaccine.

A study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) <ref>JAMA 297(8):813-819, February 28, 2007</ref> disclosed that about 3% of women are infected in their lifetime by the particular types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine.

Merck manufactures the HPV vaccine ("Gardasil") and sells it for $360 ($120 per shot in a three-shot series). Its package insert explains the limitations of the vaccine and describes its testing for safety and efficacy.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The cost for buying and administering the three-dose vaccine is about $500 per child. Accordingly, the cost of vaccinating 100 children will be about $50,000, but only 3 out of that 100 will ever be exposed to the HPV types targeted by the vaccine. The average age of diagnosis of cervical cancer is 48 years old. Accordingly, the cost is $15,000 to $50,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer over 30 years in the future. There is not yet a clear plan in place for funding this vaccine.

Alternative means of protection against cervical cancer include abstinence (most effective{{fact}}), and early detection via pap smear (effective if done regularly, but only ''detects'' infection or precancerous changes. It does not ''prevent'' infection, but can prevent progression from infection to cancer). <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#cancer</ref>. Condoms are not a safeguard against infection<ref>http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/25/2645</ref> <ref> Report to Congress 2004: Prevention of Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Gerberding, J.L., M.D., M.P.H. (January 2004): pp. 3-4. </ref>
The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics do not support making this vaccine mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, a member of the [[CDC]]'s advisory committee on immunization practices, said in a report published in the Washington Times that "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated. And they heard it from other committee members."

A list of pending statutes in NJ for the HPV vaccine is [[HPV vaccine NJ|here]].

In Britain the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has recommended that all girls between 12 and 13 be vaccinated with the shot, although the UK parliament is still to consider whether this is economically viable. The devolved Scottish parliament however plans to begin vaccination in 2008.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6768427.stm</ref>

----
<references/>

Gardasil

2007-06-20T17:16:35Z

RDre: news from Britain

Christopher Hitchens

2007-06-19T14:49:33Z

RDre: more on hitchens

[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|Christopher Hitchens]]
'''Christopher Eric Hitchens''' (April 13, 1949 [[Portsmouth]], [[England]]) is a conservative journalist, author and literary critic. Hitchens received degrees in philosophy, politics and economics from [[Oxford University|Balliol College]], [[Oxford]], in 1970. From 1971-1981, he worked in [[Britain]] as book reviewer for ''The Times'' newspaper. He emigrated to the United States in 1981, and has written regularly, or been a contributing editor for ''Harpers'', ''Vanity Fair'' and the ''Nation''. He is [[Judaism|Jewish]] by matrilineal descent, although he did not discover this until he was 38 years old. He himself is an avowed atheist.

== Writings ==
*Callaghan: The Road to Number Ten (Cassell, 1976)
*Hostage to History: Cyprus From the Ottomans to Kissinger (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1989)
*Imperial Spoils: The Case of the Parthenon Marbles (Hill and Wang, 1989)
*Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1990)
*The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice (Verso, 1995) as well as two collections including many Nation essays: *Prepared for the Worst (Hill and Wang, 1989)
*For the Sake of Argument: Essays & Minority Reports (Verso, 1993)
*No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family (Verso, 2000)
*God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion (Atlantic, 2007)

[[Category:Authors]]

[[Category:Journalists]]

Pfizer

2007-06-15T22:41:39Z

RDre: Article on main page topic

'''Pfizer''' are a multinational drugs corporation, who develop and manufacture pharmaceuticals. Convervapedia believes that they "make grandma eat cat food to pay for her medicine"<ref>Conservapedia main page</ref>.

Talk:Guillermo Gonzalez

2007-06-03T20:10:17Z

RDre: sp.

==Added details==

I've added in the Universities President's statement on the issue (it seems important to report the Universities position, and added in the details of the grant levels, as this was ostensibly the reason for denial. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 16:09, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Guillermo Gonzalez

2007-06-03T20:09:45Z

RDre: New page: ==Added details== I've added in the Universities President's statement on the issue (it seems important to report the Universities position, and added in the details of the grant levels, ...

Guillermo Gonzalez

2007-06-03T20:06:24Z

RDre: Add the president's statement, and grant levels (with references)

'''Guillermo Gonzalez''' is an astronomer and a professor at Iowa State University. He was denied tenure by the university in April, 2007, one of only three out of 66 professors to be denied tenure that year.<ref>[http://www.midiowanews.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=18333457&BRD=2700&PAG=461&dept_id=554188&rfi=8] Mid-Iowa News : Proponent of intelligent design denied tenure by ISU </ref> Faculty members involved in the tenure process acknowledged that Gonzalez's pro-[[Intelligent Design]] viewpoints, including Gonzalez's authorship of the book ''The Privileged Planet'', was a factor in the decision.<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/isu_department_faculty_acknowl.html] Discovery Institute: Iowa State Department Faculty Acknowledge ID Played Role in Gonzalez's Tenure Denial</ref> Gonzalez was denied tenure despite the fact that he had had 68 peer-reviewed science articles published, 25 of which were written since he joined the university in 2001<ref>[http://www.godandscience.org/guillermo_gonzalez.html] God and Science.org: Guillermo Gonzalez Denied Tenure by Iowa State University</ref>, and that his research had been mentioned in prestigious publications such as ''Scientific American'' (note: Scientific American is a science ''magazine'', and should not be confused with a science journal).

The University President stated of the denial of tenure that:
"As part of this decision process, I appointed a member of my staff to conduct a careful and exhaustive review of the appeal request and the full tenure dossier, and that analysis was presented to me. In addition, I conducted my own examination of Dr. Gonzalez’s appeal with respect to the evidence of research and scholarship. I independently concluded that he simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy – one of our strongest academic programs."<ref>The Des Moines Register [http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070602/NEWS02/706020334/-1/SPORTS01]</ref>

The Des Moines Register reported that the low level of funding (an important consideration in granting tenure) secured by Gonzalez was largely responsible for the denial of tenure, reporting that :
"Iowa State has sponsored $22,661 in outside grant money for Gonzalez since July 2001, records show. In that same time period, Gonzalez's peers in physics and astronomy secured an average of $1.3 million by the time they were granted tenure."<ref>The Des Moines Register [http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070602/NEWS02/706020334/-1/SPORTS01]</ref>

Gonzalez was interviewed alongside fellow astronomer Jay Wesley Richards on the topic of evidence of the universe's design by [[Lee Strobel]] in Strobel's book ''The Case for a Creator''.<ref>Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Zondervan 2004</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Science]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Gonzalez, Guillermo}}
[[Category:Astronomers]]

Vestigial structures

2007-05-31T19:10:05Z

RDre:

'''Vestigial structures''' are those [[anatomy|anatomical]] structures which have no discernible function, or are greatly reduced, in their present form in modern [[species]], but may have had a function in that species' [[ancestor]]s.<ref>http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vestigial+structure</ref>

Examples of structures claimed to be vestigial include, but are not limited to, the [[human]] [[appendix]]<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html</ref><ref>http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11555</ref>, the [[wing]]s of an [[ostrich]], the [[pelvis|pelvic]] bones of [[whale]]s and [[boa]]s <ref>http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Boa</ref>, and the [[eye]]s of the [[mole]] and cave-dwelling [[salamander]]s.<ref>http://www.bookrags.com/research/vestigial-structures-wap/</ref>

In the view of secular evolutionists, vestigial structures are some of the best evidence in favor of [[evolution]] and against [[Intelligent Design]] because they believe they are explained by [[natural selection]], but it is difficult to justify why an intelligent [[creator]] would include seemingly useless structures in the design of [[organism]]s.

Proponents of a creation or intelligent design model point out that this argument, in claiming to know what the Creator would do, is not a scientific argument, but a theological one, yet evolutionists often criticize creationists for using theological arguments against evolution.
Furthermore, this theological argument ignores the counter argument of [[the fall]], where it is understood current conditions are not the way God originally designed, and additionally is, if anything, evidence for ''devolution'', not evolution.<ref>Batten, Don, and Sarfati, John, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3863/ ‘Vestigial’ Organs: What do they prove?] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>(although loss of function is still consider evolution by biologists)

Furthermore, the fact that science has not determined the function of a particular structure does not mean that the structure has no function. Indeed, evolutionists have in the past proposed 180 human organs as being vestigial, but we now know that the vast majority of those organs have since been found to have definite functions,<ref>Bergman, Jerry, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1663/ Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?] ''Journal of Creation'', 14(2):95–98, August 2000</ref> including the [[tonsils]], [[thymus]], and the [[pineal gland]]. The tonsils were found to help fight infection, and the thymus and pineal gland were both found secrete important hormones.<ref>http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html#313</ref>. In addition, some evidence suggests that the human appendix has a role in the very early developmental stages.<ref>Glover, Warwick, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1759 The human vermiform appendix] ''Journal of Creation'' 3(1):31–38,
April 1988 Ham, Ken, and Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/709 Your appendix ... it’s there for a reason], ''Creation'' 20(1):41–42, December 1997. Wilkinson, Richard, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/559 Cutting out a useless vestigial argument], ''Creation'' 26(3):51, June 2004.</ref>

==External Links==
* [http://www.progressiveu.org/184956-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-intelligent-design-vestigial-structures-evolutionary-remnants Modern Evolutionary Theory versus Intelligent Design: Vestigial Structures/Evolutionary Remnants]
*[http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2007/02/dembskis-blissful-misunderstanding-of.html Dembski's blissful misunderstanding of design]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Vestigial structures

2007-05-30T14:45:55Z

RDre: the definition in modern biology is slightly different

'''Vestigial structures''' are those [[anatomy|anatomical]] structures which have no discernible function, or are greatly reduced, in their present form in modern [[species]], but may have had a function in that species' [[ancestor]]s.<ref>http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vestigial+structure</ref>

Examples of structures claimed to be vestigial include, but are not limited to, the [[human]] [[appendix]]<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html</ref><ref>http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11555</ref>, the [[wing]]s of an [[ostrich]], the [[pelvis|pelvic]] bones of [[whale]]s and [[boa]]s <ref>http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Boa</ref>, and the [[eye]]s of the [[mole]] and cave-dwelling [[salamander]]s.<ref>http://www.bookrags.com/research/vestigial-structures-wap/</ref>

In the view of secular evolutionists, vestigial structures are some of the best evidence in favor of [[evolution]] and against [[Intelligent Design]] because they believe they are explained by [[natural selection]], but it is difficult to justify why an intelligent [[creator]] would include seemingly useless structures in the design of [[organism]]s.

Proponents of a creation or intelligent design model point out that this argument, in claiming to know what the Creator would do, is not a scientific argument, but a theological one, yet evolutionists often criticize creationists for using theological arguments against evolution.
Furthermore, this theological argument ignores the counter argument of [[the fall]], where it is understood current conditions are not the way God originally designed, and additionally is, if anything, evidence for ''devolution'', not evolution.<ref>Batten, Don, and Sarfati, John, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3863/ ‘Vestigial’ Organs: What do they prove?] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>

Furthermore, the fact that science has not determined the function of a particular structure does not mean that the structure has no function. Indeed, evolutionists have in the past proposed 180 human organs as being vestigial, but we now know that the vast majority of those organs have since been found to have definite functions,<ref>Bergman, Jerry, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1663/ Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?] ''Journal of Creation'', 14(2):95–98, August 2000</ref> including the [[tonsils]], [[thymus]], and the [[pineal gland]]. The tonsils were found to help fight infection, and the thymus and pineal gland were both found secrete important hormones.<ref>http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html#313</ref>. In addition, some evidence suggests that the human appendix has a role in the very early developmental stages.<ref>Glover, Warwick, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1759 The human vermiform appendix] ''Journal of Creation'' 3(1):31–38,
April 1988 Ham, Ken, and Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/709 Your appendix ... it’s there for a reason], ''Creation'' 20(1):41–42, December 1997. Wilkinson, Richard, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/559 Cutting out a useless vestigial argument], ''Creation'' 26(3):51, June 2004.</ref>

==External Links==
* [http://www.progressiveu.org/184956-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-intelligent-design-vestigial-structures-evolutionary-remnants Modern Evolutionary Theory versus Intelligent Design: Vestigial Structures/Evolutionary Remnants]
*[http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2007/02/dembskis-blissful-misunderstanding-of.html Dembski's blissful misunderstanding of design]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Arthropod

2007-05-28T19:56:36Z

RDre:

An '''arthropod''' is an invertebrate with an [[exoskeleton]], a segmented body and jointed limbs. Prominent groups of arthropods are the [[insect]]s, [[crustacean]]s, and [[arachnid]]s ([[spider]]s and [[scorpion]]s), and the trilobites, which died out in the [[great flood]].

[[Category:Invertebrates]]

Parasitism

2007-05-28T17:26:48Z

RDre: begin stub

In biology, parasitism is the exploitation of one organism by another. Infection with a parasite often carries a considerable decrease in fitness. Common examples include cestodes ([[tapeworms]]), [[fleas]] and malaria.

Fungi

2007-05-28T17:21:41Z

RDre:

Fungi are a kingdom of multicellular heterotrophs. They feed primarily on decomposing plant material, aided by their ability to produce cellulose.

The fruiting bodies of fungi are known as a [[mushroom]], and are used for culinary purposes or intoxication depending on variety, although many contain deadly toxins.

The study of fungi is known as [[mycology]].

COBE

2007-05-28T06:23:20Z

RDre: Cobe, astrophysics satellite

The '''COBE''' is the acronym for the cosmic background radiation explorer. It was designed to give precision measures of the [[cosmic microwave background radiation]]. COBE found that the wavelength distribution of the cmb radiation precisely matched that of a [[perfect blackbody spectrum]], exactly as predicted by the [[big bang theory]] <ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/info.pdf</ref>.

Information

2007-05-25T14:53:30Z

RDre: /* Origin of information */ spelling, attribute, further

'''Information''' is a message transmitted by a message sender and received and understood by a message receiver.
Information can be considered to be the third [[fundamental quantity]] of the universe, after [[matter]] and [[energy]]. Information is a non-material entity, and some contest only arise from an intelligence, whilst others disagree<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html</ref>.

== The mediums of information ==

Information is carried on matter, but is not matter itself. Rather, it is the ''arrangement'' of matter that carries the information. This can be seen in that arranging matter to carry information does not change the weight of the matter. The following is a list of ways that information is carried.<ref>Gitt, Werner, ''In the Beginning was Information'', 60-61, Christliche Literateur-Verbreitung e. V., Bielefield, Germany, 1997 (English edition).</ref>
* '''Acoustic''' Information is transmitted by means of sound.
* '''Optical''' Information is transmitted by written word, flags, bar codes, sign language, bee dances, etc.
* '''Tactile''' Information is transmitted by physical touch, such as by [[braille]] writing.
* '''Magnetic''' Information is transmitted by magnetic recording mediums, such as tapes and computer disks.
* '''Electrical''' Information is transmitted by electrical signals, such as telephone and radio.
* '''Chemical''' Information is transmitted by chemical signals, such as DNA.
* '''Olfactory''' Information is transmitted by smell, such as animal scents.
* '''Electro-chemical''' Information is transmitted by electro-chemical means, such as in nervous systems.

Punching braille dots into a medium does not change the quantity of the matter, but its shape has been changed in order to carry information.
Computer disks have the same quantity of matter when formatted as when files have been written to them.
Information has been added by rearranging the magnetic particles, not by changing the quantity of matter involved.

== Information is conveyed by symbols ==

Information is transmitted by means of symbols which are usually arbitrary and only carry information because the receiver of the information understands the conventions of the symbols.
In the case of alphabetic languages, these symbols are the letters of the alphabet and the word built from those letters.
However, different languages can use different symbols to convey the same information, or the same symbols to convey different information.
For example, the word <tt>gift</tt> in [[English]] means a present, wheres in [[German]] the same word <tt>gift</tt> means a poison.
For information to be understood, the receiver of the information must know what the symbols represent.

== Levels of information ==

Information scientist has defined five levels of information.<ref>Gitt, pages 50-82.</ref>

=== Statistical ===

At the lowest level, information can be measured statistically.
This is the definition of information used by [[Claude Shannon]].
It measures the amount of space required to store information.
For example, the sentence "Conservapedia is the world's best encyclopedia" has more "information" than "Wikipedia is an inferior encyclopedia" because it takes more letters to write it.
This aspect of information is useful for calculating the capacity requirements to store and transmit information, but fails to distinguish between [[noise]] and meaning.
For example, the sentence "Conservapedia is an encyclopedia" takes 32 characters to write. The sentence "onadpelrn oyeCsens aiaia iecpvdc" also takes (the same) 32 characters, but carries no meaning.

=== Syntax ===

Information must have syntax, which is the ''arrangement'' of symbols.
Not all possible combination of symbols can actually carry meaning.

=== Semantics ===

Information must have meaning to the recipient.
If a syntactically-correct sequence of symbols does not have meaning, it is not information.

=== Pragmatics ===

Information has the potential to cause the recipient to take some action.

=== Apobetics ===

Information has a purpose.

== Measuring information ==

Whilst there is no measure for information, it is possible to compare two similar pieces of information to see which has the most information. For example, compare the following two sentences:<ref>Example taken from Lamb, 2007.</ref>
*She has a yellow vehicle.
*She has a yellow car.
The second sentence conveys more information than the first, because the second tells you not just she has a vehicle, but that the specific type of vehicle is a car.

But also note that the second sentence, although carrying more information, is shorter than the first sentence. Thus a measure of information at the ''statistical'' level bears little if any relationship to the amount of ''meaningful'' information.

== Origin of information ==

Creation scientists claim that all "information" (here referring to signal type information) is the result of a will, and as information is not a property of matter, it has a non-material source.
Thus, they believe all information ultimately has its origin in a personal mind exercising free will<ref>Gitt, page 113.</ref>, an intelligence.<ref>Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/551 SETI—coming in from the cold of space], ''Creation'' 26(3):48–50, June 2004.</ref>

However, it is not impossible for information of this type to arise by chance, simply much less likely. If a mechanism for conserving information exists (ie. biological or electronical reproduction, as found in the natural world and the simulation tierra, respectively), then in theory large quantities of information can be produced from not intelligent source<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html</ref>.

==Law of Conservation of Information==

[[William Dembski]]'s [[Law of Conservation of Information]] states that information cannot be created or destroyed.

== Information and creation ==

Creationists use the science of information to argue that the information carried on the DNA of all living things must have had its origin in an intelligence (God), and could not have arisen through natural ([[materialism|materialistic]]) processes.

== Bibliography ==
* Gitt, Werner, ''In the Beginning was Information'', Christliche Literateur-Verbreitung e. V., Bielefield, Germany, 1997 (English edition).
* Gitt, Werner, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1533 Information, science and biology], ''Journal of Creation'' 10(2):181–187.
* Lamb, Andrew, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4947 More or less information?], [[17 February]] [[2007]]

== References ==
<references />

Cube

2007-05-15T16:21:57Z

RDre: Regular solid

A geometric object with 6 faces, 12 edges and 6 vertices.

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-05-15T16:17:37Z

RDre: Jewish encyclopedia

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

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

== #1 ==

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

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

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

== Liberal bias ==

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

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

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

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

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

== The Deluge criticism ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::: Wikipedia allows unlimited criticism. It contains an article about Conservapedia that includes many of Conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia. It even has a 106-source article entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia" that Wikipedia users wrote themselves. I criticized this article on this talk page, and my comment (along with many others) was deleted. If you aren't a liar, Aschlafly, then you are breathtakingly delusional. It would have been just as easy to remove the obscenities then protect the article.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry is a self-serving joke that censors any real criticism. I put in factual statements of bias in the Wikipedia and my factual, respectful statements were distorted and then censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: How many sources does this page cite? It would appear wikipedia is more exhaustive in criticizing themselves than Conservapedia is at criticizing Wikipedia.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wow, is that the test you're proposing? Simply count the number of citations, no matter what they say? That does seem consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. As shown by the content page here, Wikipedia makes a factual claim and then provides a citation that actually fails to support the claim at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

:::You can think about it this way. If your data is correct, then if you were to walk down the street and grab 6 people, statistically you should get 2 liberals and 4 conservatives. At wikipedia, you should get 1.5 conservatives (statistically speaking) and 4.5 liberals. 1.5 times 3 equals 4.5, and 1.5 plus 4.5 equals 6. Divide 4.5 by 2, and you get 2.25. And Hacker's right, "bias" refers to the articles themselves, not to who wrote them. Being mostly composed of liberals is not an example of bias.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'm going to be really really really sorry I ever mentioned this, but you '''can''' also think of it this way.

::::Accept for argument Andrew Schlafly's assumptions—(which I most bodaciously do ''not'' accept)—that America is conservative, 2:1 and that Wikipedia is liberal, 3:1. Now, imagine conservatives at Wikipedia encircled by and trying to fight off liberals, and ask: for every pair of conservatives, how many liberals on average must they vanquish in order to prevail? The answer is every pair of conservatives needs to subdue '''six''' liberals. Now ask the same question for America. Here, the answer is that every pair of conservatives only needs to dispatch '''one''' liberal. Ergo, at Wikipedia the conservatives would need to work six times as hard. QED. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't read Andy's mind, but I doubt that is how he arrived at his magic number of 6. Creative thinking though!! [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== #47 ==

<blockquote>Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in [a] story</blockquote>

What does this have to do with any bias on the part of Wikipedia, and more to the point, in what way is any such bias shown, in this case, liberal? --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers are known to have a liberal bias also, and hence the copying from the liberal Wikipedia is noteworthy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Um, no. Some newspapers lean left, but there are plenty of newspapers that endorse a conservative position. Quite a few (if not most) of the papers in my area are pretty conservative actually. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What does any liberal bias in the written press (LOL) have to do with whether Wikipedia has a liberal bias or not? Number 47 simply is not an example of bias in wikipedia. You may think it's "noteworthy" but so what? It's listed as an example of bias in Wikipedia. I think that counts as [[deceit]].--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 09:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== #41 ==

That shouldn't be there, surely, as it is simply someone saying Wikipedia is biased, rather than an actual example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: It quotes an insightful remark by an authority. That's what good encyclopedias do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't dispute this, but the fact remains that it's not actually an example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 11:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== What the heck…? ==

I'm sorry about this, and I'll get to work on [[MediaWiki]] and stay out of trouble for a while after I have my say, but how is criticism of articles without a worldwide viewpoint a "bias"? Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and yes, America is not the only English-speaking country around, so it can't claim ownership of even the English edition. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the criticism means that Wikipedia places an excessive emphasize on the "worldwide viewpoint", often to the exclusion of US views such as conservatism. It's one thing to say what everyone in the world thinks, another to try to homogenize it into one "consensus" view. (See [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] - or until those are written, [[multiculturalism]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested edit ==

Could globalist be linked to [[Globalism]]. Has that anything to do with [[Globalization]]? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 13:16, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Link added. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules ==
It saddens me to see that people feel that it is OK to criticize a project that they have not even read most of the rules of. Yes, Wikipedia says that it is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and is NPOV. Of course it is not NPOV yet, but someday could be. Most of these criticisms (well over 70%) are based on ignorance of Wikipedia rules. There are 42 policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and I doubt most people who are writing these criticisms have bothered to read any of those, except for the introduction. And the unbelievable hypocrisy of ''deleting'' and ''protecting'' a page called [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] is sickening. So yes, if anybody was to go and read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, they will see that these criticisms are completely unfounded (well, most of 'em). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, the criticisms are based on the results, and the Wikipedia rules really have very little to do with this. The rules themselves encourage bias (e.g., "NPOV" towards terrorists) or the rules may be applied against conservative edits (e.g., initially against the entry on Conservapedia). And then there are the criticisms about the rules don't say, such as the Wikipedia rules do not prohibit obscenity, gossip, or pretending liberal opinion is fact.

: A study of bias doesn't really care what the rules or cause is. The study is about the results. But thanks for your comments and Lord bless you for your efforts on Wikipedia and here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::And, ignorance is bliss ... it's much easier to blindly criticize something instead of trying to study/investigate the reasons. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently not easy enough, as some people (including Jimmy Wales himself) still pretend that Wikipedia does not have bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Time for my response (sigh); First of all, Jimmy Wales admits that it has a bias; he would be ignorant not to. But it is obvious that articles are much better now than they were a year or two ago. It's clear that great strides have been made towards not having a noticeable bias. And you say criticism is based on results? The stated goals of a project dictate what will be considered "good" and "bad", and most of the criticisms here are empty in their factual backing. Also, the "NPOV" towards terrorists is more neutral than calling them just "terrorists", no? Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, LTTE, etc. aren't usually referred to as "terrorist", because they are seen as legitimate freedom fighters by huge chunks of the Arabic and Western world.
:::: Groups like al-Qaeda are still described as terrorist organizations in the introduction, since a larger group of legitimate sources consider them to be terrorists.
:::: And "pretending liberal opinion is fact"; Liberal opinion is rarely represented as fact, but liberal reports with ''factual backing'' is reported with more legitimacy. That's what the WP:RS guideline exists, to make sure reliable sources are used. I think you mean liberal ''pontification'' on facts represented as facts; that's what WP:CSB is trying to fix. And may I refer you to look at our very own [[Theory of evolution]] article, where there are 14 blockquotes from sources who have very little authority to be talking about evolution. Let us remember that 99.84% of scientists support the evolutionary theory. How are those 14 blockquotes, along with many, many, many AiG references not "conservative opinion is fact"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:23, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
: What ''study''? [[User:Order]] May 14.

== Jewish encyclopedia ==

There's no need for scare quotes around the Jewish encyclopedia, it just looks like we're either ignorant or accusing Wikipedia of being anti-semitic. The Jewish encyclopedia is a real work, and often cited for things relating to Judaism. [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ link to the Jewish encyclopedia]. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-05-14T14:04:18Z

RDre: /* I Second This */

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

'''Sub-pages'''

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

|}

== ColinR ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Blocking of NousEpirrhytos ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uh, here, TK:

'But Freud's work was crap,'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving on...

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

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

Moving on...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Swearing==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== False accusation by TK ==

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

:''Tea....

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

Rather puzzled by this, I responded in kind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{unsigned|PatrioticAmericanCitizen}}

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

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

[[User: PatrioticAmericanCitizen|PatrioticAmericanCitizen]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::If you are fair, then why do you not answer the questions posed against your integrity in some of the sections above? [[User:RDre|RDre]] 10:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?

2007-04-21T16:51:56Z

RDre:

''Moved from [[talk:Main Page]]''

==The Poem Criticism on the Main Page...==

Really isn't needed. We shouldn't be pushing an agenda when 32 innocent lives were just taken. Wouldn't the space be better spent with prayers, and links to sites which will help students grieve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to go to great lengths to read something into the poem that isn't there. It also seems a bit tasteless under the circumstances. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 03:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pathetic ... I would have thought caring christians as the admins claim to be would be above this sort of trash. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 03:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The "Poem" is an ode to secularism and minimizes their demise by equating their tragic deaths with other causes and tragedies, involving one thousand times the number of people. Such tactics are often used by Holocaust denial groups, and is certainly not worthy of a supposedly great University. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus Christ, now you compare them to holocaust deniers! You and Andy sicken me. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's a crappy poem, but using it score cheap points is not in good taste.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 07:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::{{remove personal remark|You little fanatics.}} You use a poem - admittedly poor, but written from the viewpoint of those writing it - in a feeble attempt to push your own agenda. It's appalling. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 07:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

In the notes in brackets
Andy seems to be critiquing the [[politics]] of the "poem".
The poem is a feeble attempt
on the part of VTech's English Department
to use the tragedy as a [[hook]]
to hang their liberal agenda on.
Andy's just calling them out on this.
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::*{{remove personal remark|Nematocyte, take a few days to wash your mouth out with soap. On me.}} This is a site on the Web, not a life and death situation. {{remove personal remark|If you are sick, try some Pepto.}} --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The poem is a political, self-serving rant by a University that should have taken meaningful steps to prevent this massacre. The English Department that educated this killer should be scrutinized and this poem is the best place to start. Ideas do matter, and unless the mistakes are identified here than the sacrifice of innocent lives will inevitably and needlessly occur again. We owe to the victims and to future students to look critically at the University's role in allowing this massacre to happen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

So, there is an student at VT english department who mourns his fellow students and decides to write a poem for them. Rest of the department honors the victims by publishing it on their web page. Then there is Conservapedia, which instead of mourning or respecting the feelings of the survivors starts to bash the poem as too liberal and not christian enough. This kinda sickens me. Im not even going to say anything more about the critisism itself, exept what does it matter, even if the writer was an liberal atheist, arent they allowed to mourn and write about their feelings? Do you really think she wrote it to be an political statement? What if others would act the same? If you where one of the survivors, would you like to read some atheist bashing your poem written to the wictims to be too christian or mayby pushing concervative agenda? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:The "poem" expressed many political opinions and very few feelings. I do not see how it could even be considered [[poetry]], other than the fact that it was formatted as [[blank verse]].

:Moreover, not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. The incident was the "expression" of feelings of rage by a very disturbed individual. Must we "approve" of his expression as an [[art]]istic act? <s>Get real, mister.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please tell me you just didnt try to say that we should criticise the people who don't mourn the way we want, as we would criticise the killers homicidal rampage? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't say that. I said that not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. Suppose someone hates you. Would you feel obliged to "validate" their feelings? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is an poem, written by an student who might have been there at the time of the shootings, very least she knew some of the people killed. You take her poem, try to find hidden liberal agenda from it, for example the mentioning of elephants and ivory... Give me a break, you really think she wrote the poem to help the wildlife?, and then without even knowing her religios views you bash her for not mentioning God or including a prayer. And then you justify it by saying that her attempt to show her grief isn't an opinnion worth respecting? That is just outrageous. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, re an earlier post on this, you're not entitled to degrade the quality of this site either... but anyways. This is not about how "good" the poem is. This is not about whether or not its "political." What this '''''is''''' about is how it's tacky & tasteless to start bashing VT for what they clearly see as an attempt to express their mourning! I don't care if it's political, or good poetry, but they deserve respect & compassion, not politicization. Criticizing them is another of Andy's attempts to score points off of a tragedy. I'll close by saying that making fun of grieving children is a new low, even for the Schlafly family.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this ''Trustworthy Encylopedia'' sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 12:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Shame on Liberals for politicizing the VTech incident. Can they sink much lower than to exploit a senseless tragedy to score [[partisan]] points? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, the "liberals" aren't politicizing this! We're explicitly ''protesting'' the politicization! Now, Andy, either you pull this poem criticism from the main page, or I'll e-mail Virginia Tech's English department to tell them about your gross insensitivity, ignorance, and baseless hatred.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Kind of strange that the very ones who whine and complain about demanding free speech here would attempt to stifle it by protesting a self-serving poem. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It's obviously legal to be a hateful bigot. I'm not saying it's illegal for Andy to put things like that on the front page. I'm saying that he should exercise his discretion as a compassionate (we hope) human being and limit his legal rights according to general rules of decency. There's a difference that many people misunderstand and apparently, Karajou, you're one of them. Andy, please pull the poem critique, or I will alert VT, and I bet they won't be happy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong answer, AmesG, and I've never been a bigot. From the continued posts I've seen from you over the past few months I cannot tell whether you're a highly educated man or a whining child who refuses to act like one...and now this "pull the poem or I'm going to tell" garbage. Go ahead and notify them. They're already in hot water for giving a lunatic a pass to kill. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Ed, you say that they express political points in their poem? I didn't know it was now overly liberal to mention that millions have died from AIDS, which is easily preventable. Or that those without fresh water could perhaps be given some. -{{unsigned|Hojimachong}}-12:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Karajou, I think? It's the educated one. I'll give Andy a chance to reply first. I never called you a bigot, I called Andy a bigot.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, AmesG, I'm going to call you a four-letter word, and that word is '''GONE''', as in I want you to pack up and leave this site. I'm fed up with your self-serving rants, your attitude, your high-and-mighty self righteousness, your repeated attempts to force an alien ideology down our throats, and the babyish name-calling when you don't get your way. '''LEAVE'''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This is disgusting. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Information

2007-04-15T15:48:59Z

RDre: /* Attribution */

== Attribution ==

With such a controversial topic it is essential to add proper attribution to claims. Unless you can objectively prove that information can only come into existence by intelligent means, then it is inappropriate to state something as fact. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 11:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Science does not "prove", but can succeed or fail to disprove. Can you dispute (disprove) the claim? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::Perhaps we'd do better to defer this discussion until we've got a neutral description of what information theory actually states. Once we've got that down, then we could discuss its implications. Thoughts? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:45, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::A neutral definition would be helpful. However, attribution would still be useful anyway. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 11:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Information

2007-04-15T15:41:51Z

RDre: Here's one ref.

'''Information''' is a message transmitted by a message sender and received and understood by a message receiver.
Information can be considered to be the third [[fundamental quantity]] of the universe, after [[matter]] and [[energy]]. Information is a non-material entity, and some contest only arise from an intelligence, whilst others disagree<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html</ref>.

== The mediums of information ==

Information is carried on matter, but is not matter itself. Rather, it is the ''arrangement'' of matter that carries the information. This can be seen in that arranging matter to carry information does not change the weight of the matter. The following is a list of ways that information is carried.<ref>Gitt, Werner, ''In the Beginning was Information'', 60-61, Christliche Literateur-Verbreitung e. V., Bielefield, Germany, 1997 (English edition).</ref>
* '''Acoustic''' Information is transmitted by means of sound.
* '''Optical''' Information is transmitted by written word, flags, bar codes, sign language, bee dances, etc.
* '''Tactile''' Information is transmitted by physical touch, such as by [[braille]] writing.
* '''Magnetic''' Information is transmitted by magnetic recording mediums, such as tapes and computer disks.
* '''Electrical''' Information is transmitted by electrical signals, such as telephone and radio.
* '''Chemical''' Information is transmitted by chemical signals, such as DNA.
* '''Olfactory''' Information is transmitted by smell, such as animal scents.
* '''Electro-chemical''' Information is transmitted by electro-chemical means, such as in nervous systems.

Punching braille dots into a medium does not change the quantity of the matter, but its shape has been changed in order to carry information.
Computer disks have the same quantity of matter when formatted as when files have been written to them.
Information has been added by rearranging the magnetic particles, not by changing the quantity of matter involved.

== Information is conveyed by symbols ==

Information is transmitted by means of symbols which are usually arbitrary and only carry information because the receiver of the information understands the conventions of the symbols.
In the case of alphabetic languages, these symbols are the letters of the alphabet and the word built from those letters.
However, different languages can use different symbols to convey the same information, or the same symbols to convey different information.
For example, the word <tt>gift</tt> in [[English]] means a present, wheres in [[German]] the same word <tt>gift</tt> means a poison.
For information to be understood, the receiver of the information must know what the symbols represent.

== Levels of information ==

Information scientist has defined five levels of information.<ref>Gitt, pages 50-82.</ref>

=== Statistical ===

At the lowest level, information can be measured statistically.
This is the definition of information used by [[Claude Shannon]].
It measures the amount of space required to store information.
For example, the sentence "Conservapedia is the world's best encyclopedia" has more "information" than "Wikipedia is an inferior encyclopedia" because it takes more letters to write it.
This aspect of information is useful for calculating the capacity requirements to store and transmit information, but fails to distinguish between [[noise]] and meaning.
For example, the sentence "Conservapedia is an encyclopedia" takes 32 characters to write. The sentence "onadpelrn oyeCsens aiaia iecpvdc" also takes (the same) 32 characters, but carries no meaning.

=== Syntax ===

Information must have syntax, which is the ''arrangement'' of symbols.
Not all possible combination of symbols can actually carry meaning.

=== Semantics ===

Information must have meaning to the recipient.
If a syntactically-correct sequence of symbols does not have meaning, it is not information.

=== Pragmatics ===

Information has the potential to cause the recipient to take some action.

=== Apobetics ===

Information has a purpose.

== Origin of information ==

All information is the result of a will, and as information is not a property of matter, it has a non-material source.
Thus all information ultimately has its origin in a personal mind excercising free will<ref>Gitt, page 113.</ref>, an intelligence.<ref>Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/551 SETI—coming in from the cold of space], ''Creation'' 26(3):48–50
June 2004.</ref>

== Information and creation ==

Creationists use the science of information to argue that the information carried on the DNA of all living things must have had its origin in an intelligence (God), and could not have arisen through natural ([[materialism|materialistic]]) processes.

== Bibliography ==
* Gitt, Werner, ''In the Beginning was Information'', Christliche Literateur-Verbreitung e. V., Bielefield, Germany, 1997 (English edition).
* Gitt, Werner, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1533 Information, science and biology], ''Journal of Creation'' 10(2):181–187.
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4947 More or less information? / Has a recent experiment proved creation?].

== References ==
<references />

Talk:Information

2007-04-15T15:36:48Z

RDre: Attribution

Information

2007-04-15T15:34:02Z

RDre: add more generalist attribution.

'''Information''' is a message transmitted by a message sender and received and understood by a message receiver.
Information can be considered to be the third [[fundamental quantity]] of the universe, after [[matter]] and [[energy]]. Information is a non-material entity, which Creation scientists contest can only arise from an intelligence.

== The mediums of information ==

Information is carried on matter, but is not matter itself. Rather, it is the ''arrangement'' of matter that carries the information. This can be seen in that arranging matter to carry information does not change the weight of the matter. The following is a list of ways that information is carried.<ref>Gitt, Werner, ''In the Beginning was Information'', 60-61, Christliche Literateur-Verbreitung e. V., Bielefield, Germany, 1997 (English edition).</ref>
* '''Acoustic''' Information is transmitted by means of sound.
* '''Optical''' Information is transmitted by written word, flags, bar codes, sign language, bee dances, etc.
* '''Tactile''' Information is transmitted by physical touch, such as by [[braille]] writing.
* '''Magnetic''' Information is transmitted by magnetic recording mediums, such as tapes and computer disks.
* '''Electrical''' Information is transmitted by electrical signals, such as telephone and radio.
* '''Chemical''' Information is transmitted by chemical signals, such as DNA.
* '''Olfactory''' Information is transmitted by smell, such as animal scents.
* '''Electro-chemical''' Information is transmitted by electro-chemical means, such as in nervous systems.

Punching braille dots into a medium does not change the quantity of the matter, but its shape has been changed in order to carry information.
Computer disks have the same quantity of matter when formatted as when files have been written to them.
Information has been added by rearranging the magnetic particles, not by changing the quantity of matter involved.

== Information is conveyed by symbols ==

Information is transmitted by means of symbols which are usually arbitrary and only carry information because the receiver of the information understands the conventions of the symbols.
In the case of alphabetic languages, these symbols are the letters of the alphabet and the word built from those letters.
However, different languages can use different symbols to convey the same information, or the same symbols to convey different information.
For example, the word <tt>gift</tt> in [[English]] means a present, wheres in [[German]] the same word <tt>gift</tt> means a poison.
For information to be understood, the receiver of the information must know what the symbols represent.

== Levels of information ==

Information scientist has defined five levels of information.<ref>Gitt, pages 50-82.</ref>

=== Statistical ===

At the lowest level, information can be measured statistically.
This is the definition of information used by [[Claude Shannon]].
It measures the amount of space required to store information.
For example, the sentence "Conservapedia is the world's best encyclopedia" has more "information" than "Wikipedia is an inferior encyclopedia" because it takes more letters to write it.
This aspect of information is useful for calculating the capacity requirements to store and transmit information, but fails to distinguish between [[noise]] and meaning.
For example, the sentence "Conservapedia is an encyclopedia" takes 32 characters to write. The sentence "onadpelrn oyeCsens aiaia iecpvdc" also takes (the same) 32 characters, but carries no meaning.

=== Syntax ===

Information must have syntax, which is the ''arrangement'' of symbols.
Not all possible combination of symbols can actually carry meaning.

=== Semantics ===

Information must have meaning to the recipient.
If a syntactically-correct sequence of symbols does not have meaning, it is not information.

=== Pragmatics ===

Information has the potential to cause the recipient to take some action.

=== Apobetics ===

Information has a purpose.

== Origin of information ==

All information is the result of a will, and as information is not a property of matter, it has a non-material source.
Thus all information ultimately has its origin in a personal mind excercising free will<ref>Gitt, page 113.</ref>, an intelligence.<ref>Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/551 SETI—coming in from the cold of space], ''Creation'' 26(3):48–50
June 2004.</ref>

== Information and creation ==

Creationists use the science of information to argue that the information carried on the DNA of all living things must have had its origin in an intelligence (God), and could not have arisen through natural ([[materialism|materialistic]]) processes.

== Bibliography ==
* Gitt, Werner, ''In the Beginning was Information'', Christliche Literateur-Verbreitung e. V., Bielefield, Germany, 1997 (English edition).
* Gitt, Werner, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1533 Information, science and biology], ''Journal of Creation'' 10(2):181–187.
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4947 More or less information? / Has a recent experiment proved creation?].

== References ==
<references />

Information

2007-04-15T15:23:46Z

RDre: Adding attribution, as per style guide

'''Information''' is a message transmitted by a message sender and received and understood by a message receiver.
Information can be considered to be the third [[fundamental quantity]] of the universe, after [[matter]] and [[energy]]. Information is a non-material entity, and according to an article in the Young Earth Creationist journal ''Creation'' it can only arise from an intelligence.

== The mediums of information ==

Information is carried on matter, but is not matter itself. Rather, it is the ''arrangement'' of matter that carries the information. This can be seen in that arranging matter to carry information does not change the weight of the matter. The following is a list of ways that information is carried.<ref>Gitt, Werner, ''In the Beginning was Information'', 60-61, Christliche Literateur-Verbreitung e. V., Bielefield, Germany, 1997 (English edition).</ref>
* '''Acoustic''' Information is transmitted by means of sound.
* '''Optical''' Information is transmitted by written word, flags, bar codes, sign language, bee dances, etc.
* '''Tactile''' Information is transmitted by physical touch, such as by [[braille]] writing.
* '''Magnetic''' Information is transmitted by magnetic recording mediums, such as tapes and computer disks.
* '''Electrical''' Information is transmitted by electrical signals, such as telephone and radio.
* '''Chemical''' Information is transmitted by chemical signals, such as DNA.
* '''Olfactory''' Information is transmitted by smell, such as animal scents.
* '''Electro-chemical''' Information is transmitted by electro-chemical means, such as in nervous systems.

Punching braille dots into a medium does not change the quantity of the matter, but its shape has been changed in order to carry information.
Computer disks have the same quantity of matter when formatted as when files have been written to them.
Information has been added by rearranging the magnetic particles, not by changing the quantity of matter involved.

== Information is conveyed by symbols ==

Information is transmitted by means of symbols which are usually arbitrary and only carry information because the receiver of the information understands the conventions of the symbols.
In the case of alphabetic languages, these symbols are the letters of the alphabet and the word built from those letters.
However, different languages can use different symbols to convey the same information, or the same symbols to convey different information.
For example, the word <tt>gift</tt> in [[English]] means a present, wheres in [[German]] the same word <tt>gift</tt> means a poison.
For information to be understood, the receiver of the information must know what the symbols represent.

== Levels of information ==

Information scientist has defined five levels of information.<ref>Gitt, pages 50-82.</ref>

=== Statistical ===

At the lowest level, information can be measured statistically.
This is the definition of information used by [[Claude Shannon]].
It measures the amount of space required to store information.
For example, the sentence "Conservapedia is the world's best encyclopedia" has more "information" than "Wikipedia is an inferior encyclopedia" because it takes more letters to write it.
This aspect of information is useful for calculating the capacity requirements to store and transmit information, but fails to distinguish between [[noise]] and meaning.
For example, the sentence "Conservapedia is an encyclopedia" takes 32 characters to write. The sentence "onadpelrn oyeCsens aiaia iecpvdc" also takes (the same) 32 characters, but carries no meaning.

=== Syntax ===

Information must have syntax, which is the ''arrangement'' of symbols.
Not all possible combination of symbols can actually carry meaning.

=== Semantics ===

Information must have meaning to the recipient.
If a syntactically-correct sequence of symbols does not have meaning, it is not information.

=== Pragmatics ===

Information has the potential to cause the recipient to take some action.

=== Apobetics ===

Information has a purpose.

== Origin of information ==

All information is the result of a will, and as information is not a property of matter, it has a non-material source.
Thus all information ultimately has its origin in intelligence.<ref>Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/551 SETI—coming in from the cold of space], ''Creation'' 26(3):48–50
June 2004.</ref>

== Information and creation ==

Creationists use the science of information to argue that the information carried on the DNA of all living things must have had its origin in an intelligence (God), and could not have arisen through natural ([[materialism|materialistic]]) processes.

== Bibliography ==
* Gitt, Werner, ''In the Beginning was Information'', Christliche Literateur-Verbreitung e. V., Bielefield, Germany, 1997 (English edition).
* Gitt, Werner, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1533 Information, science and biology], ''Journal of Creation'' 10(2):181–187.
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4947 More or less information? / Has a recent experiment proved creation?].

== References ==
<references />

Information

2007-04-15T15:11:05Z

RDre: cite?

'''Information''' is a message transmitted by a message sender and received and understood by a message receiver.
Information can be considered to be the third [[fundamental quantity]] of the universe, after [[matter]] and [[energy]]. Information is a non-material entity, and can only arise from an intelligence.{{fact}}

== The mediums of information ==

Information is carried on matter, but is not matter itself. Rather, it is the ''arrangement'' of matter that carries the information. This can be seen in that arranging matter to carry information does not change the weight of the matter. The following is a list of ways that information is carried.<ref>Gitt, Werner, ''In the Beginning was Information'', 60-61, Christliche Literateur-Verbreitung e. V., Bielefield, Germany, 1997 (English edition).</ref>
* '''Acoustic''' Information is transmitted by means of sound.
* '''Optical''' Information is transmitted by written word, flags, bar codes, sign language, bee dances, etc.
* '''Tactile''' Information is transmitted by physical touch, such as by [[braille]] writing.
* '''Magnetic''' Information is transmitted by magnetic recording mediums, such as tapes and computer disks.
* '''Electrical''' Information is transmitted by electrical signals, such as telephone and radio.
* '''Chemical''' Information is transmitted by chemical signals, such as DNA.
* '''Olfactory''' Information is transmitted by smell, such as animal scents.
* '''Electro-chemical''' Information is transmitted by electro-chemical means, such as in nervous systems.

Punching braille dots into a medium does not change the quantity of the matter, but its shape has been changed in order to carry information.
Computer disks have the same quantity of matter when formatted as when files have been written to them.
Information has been added by rearranging the magnetic particles, not by changing the quantity of matter involved.

== Information is conveyed by symbols ==

Information is transmitted by means of symbols which are usually arbitrary and only carry information because the receiver of the information understands the conventions of the symbols.
In the case of alphabetic languages, these symbols are the letters of the alphabet and the word built from those letters.
However, different languages can use different symbols to convey the same information, or the same symbols to convey different information.
For example, the word <tt>gift</tt> in [[English]] means a present, wheres in [[German]] the same word <tt>gift</tt> means a poison.
For information to be understood, the receiver of the information must know what the symbols represent.

== Levels of information ==

Information scientist has defined five levels of information.<ref>Gitt, pages 50-82.</ref>

=== Statistical ===

At the lowest level, information can be measured statistically.
This is the definition of information used by [[Claude Shannon]].
It measures the amount of space required to store information.
For example, the sentence "Conservapedia is the world's best encyclopedia" has more "information" than "Wikipedia is an inferior encyclopedia" because it takes more letters to write it.
This aspect of information is useful for calculating the capacity requirements to store and transmit information, but fails to distinguish between [[noise]] and meaning.
For example, the sentence "Conservapedia is an encyclopedia" takes 32 characters to write. The sentence "onadpelrn oyeCsens aiaia iecpvdc" also takes (the same) 32 characters, but carries no meaning.

=== Syntax ===

Information must have syntax, which is the ''arrangement'' of symbols.
Not all possible combination of symbols can actually carry meaning.

=== Semantics ===

Information must have meaning to the recipient.
If a syntactically-correct sequence of symbols does not have meaning, it is not information.

=== Pragmatics ===

Information has the potential to cause the recipient to take some action.

=== Apobetics ===

Information has a purpose.

== Origin of information ==

All information is the result of a will, and as information is not a property of matter, it has a non-material source.
Thus all information ultimately has its origin in intelligence.

== Information and creation ==

Creationists use the science of information to argue that the information carried on the DNA of all living things must have had its origin in an intelligence (God), and could not have arisen through natural ([[materialism|materialistic]]) processes.

== Bibliography ==
* Gitt, Werner, ''In the Beginning was Information'', Christliche Literateur-Verbreitung e. V., Bielefield, Germany, 1997 (English edition).
* Gitt, Werner, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1533 Information, science and biology], ''Journal of Creation'' 10(2):181–187.
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4947 More or less information? / Has a recent experiment proved creation?].

== References ==
<references />

Embryonic stem cells

2007-04-15T11:15:38Z

RDre: As a matter of fact, the embryos were already discarded. It's incorrect to refer to research as resulting in their deaths.

Embryonic stem cells are taken from the inner part of a young embryo, also known as a [[blastocyst]]. An embryo reaches the blastocyst stage about 4-5 days after [[fertilization]]. At that point they contain about 50-150 cells.

Embryonic stem cells can differentiate into the three "germ layers": [[ectoderm]], [[endoderm]] and [[mesoderm]]. The 220 types of cells in humans are all based on these germ layers. Some scientists, particularly those having pro-choice political views, claim that embryonic stem cells can differentiate better, and divide into greater numbers, than [[adult stem cells]] can.

Upstanding [[pro-life]] conservatives consider taking stem cells from human embryos, which are then discarded, as tantamount to [[abortion]], a hideous and [[evil]] practice. President Bush was pressured by [[Liberal]] [[Scientist]]s into funding stem cell research[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html].

Talk:Primate

2007-04-11T18:51:39Z

RDre:

Mainstream biologists place [[human]]s in with primates, but I feel that this is the same as asserting that people are only animals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Biologically; yes. However, in my opinion, what makes us different is that we have the power of higher thinking and creativity. [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 14:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::There might be more to it than that (see [[Creationism]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Clearly the word "animal" is used differently in the Bible than it is in modern science. I'm becoming acutely conscious of the new talk page rule, so I'll post no more on this topic (I'm not joking). [[User:RDre|RDre]] 14:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Category talk:Primates

2007-04-11T18:40:59Z

RDre:

Don't even '''think''' of categorizing [[human being]]s here. That is a matter which must be discussed and agreed upon '''first'''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Won't discussions increase your chances of being permablocked under the new rule, Ed. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 14:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::<chuckle> I'll just have to take that chance. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

umm, that already happened when homo sapiens was included. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Human beings clearly are primates. As God made them. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't like the tone of the term "[[primate]]" as it relates to the [[Theory of evolution]]. Isn't it used dismissively, to imply that [[people]] are only [[animal]]s? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::It is hardly used dismissively by the Catholic Church, where Primates are highly respected churchmen. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Are we a vegetable? [[User:RDre|RDre]] 14:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps that is a reference to the children's game, [[Twenty Questions]]. "Animal, vegetable, or mineral?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly. I don't understand what you mean by "''only'' animals". [[User:RDre|RDre]] 14:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Primate

2007-04-11T18:37:40Z

RDre: include human, but with caveat about it being formulated by biologists.

Primates are a group of mainly tropical mammals. Several hundred species belong to the order.

They are often put into 3 large groups: Prosimians, including lemurs, tarsiers, and lorises. Monkeys are actually split into smaller groups: New World Monkeys, like
spider and howler monkeys, and Old World monkeys like languars and baboons. Apes are somewhat similar to monkeys, but have no tail. As formulated by most biologists, they include gorillas, gibbons, chimps and humans.

[[Category:Mammals]]

Category talk:Primates

2007-04-11T18:35:34Z

RDre: reword, sounded nasty, which it wasn't meant as.

Category talk:Primates

2007-04-11T18:34:54Z

RDre:

Category talk:Primates

2007-04-11T18:30:41Z

RDre:

Talk:Infinity

2007-04-11T18:19:46Z

RDre:

This article refers to infinity as both being a number, and not being a number. Clarify. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Can you fix it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not qualified to judge which it is, but it's been dealt with now. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 14:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Infinity

2007-04-11T18:12:42Z

RDre: Contradiction in article

This article refers to infinity as both being a number, and not being a number. Clarify. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Whiskey

2007-04-11T18:03:37Z

RDre: Notes on origins and spelling.

Whiskey is a distilled [[Alcoholic drinks|alcoholic beverage]], commonly made from malted cereal grains such as barley, rye or wheat. One common example is "Scotch" which is made from malted barley and is made in [[Scotland]]. [[Ireland]] is also a large producer of Irish Whiskey. Whiskey originates within [[Scotland]] and [[Ireland]], where it was originally, and currently, spelled "Whisky" (minus the "e").
{{stub}}

Pompeii

2007-04-11T17:51:50Z

RDre: New page: '''Pompeii''' was an ancient Roman city destroyed by the volcano Vesuvius. The ruins gained fame because the falling ash preserved the shapes of many of the occupants killed by the eru...

'''Pompeii''' was an ancient Roman city destroyed by the volcano [[Vesuvius]]. The ruins gained fame because the falling ash preserved the shapes of many of the occupants killed by the eruption. The empty spaces allowed for the creation of plaster casts of some of the former occupants.

Vesuvius

2007-04-11T17:45:30Z

RDre: New page: '''Vesuvius''' is a currently dormant volcano famous for the destruction of the cities Herculaneum and Pompeii.

'''Vesuvius''' is a currently dormant volcano famous for the destruction of the cities [[Herculaneum]] and [[Pompeii]].

Polar Bear

2007-04-07T11:01:18Z

RDre: More info.

The '''Polar Bear''' (Ursus Maritimus) is a species of [[bear]] found in extreme northerly climates. They are capable of surviving extreme cold, as well as sea ice, snow and frozen land.

They have thick blubber to keep warm and white fur for camouflage. They are the only natural predator of mankind, a condition thought to be due to their survival of the [[great flood]] outside of Noah's ark <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/polar-bears</ref>. For this reason they are greatly feared by arctic travelers.

Changes in the Earth's climate are threatening the polar bears habitat and the survival of the species:The current world population is estimated at around 20-25,000 <ref>http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/</ref>, and shrinking.

<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]

Manticore

2007-04-07T10:33:00Z

RDre: Fix ref.

The '''Manticore''' is a mythical beast, said to posses the head of man, body of a lion and tail of a scorpion. Originally of Persian origin, the manticore is still rumored to stalk the jungles of central Asia. Some Christian apologetics have linked the manticore to various fossils usually interpreted as dinosaurs, with the loss of soft tissues decreasing overt semblance to it's original form <ref>Holycross ministries, sermons on Biblical apologetics.</ref>

The Manticore is also found in many modern works of fiction, ranging from fightable monsters in role playing games, to comic book monsters.

Manticore

2007-04-07T10:32:31Z

RDre: On mythology

The '''Manticore''' is a mythical beast, said to posses the head of man, body of a lion and tail of a scorpion. Originally of Persian origin, the manticore is still rumored to stalk the jungles of central Asia. Some Christian apologetics have linked the manticore to various fossils usually interpreted as dinosaurs, with the loss of soft tissues decreasing overt semblance to it's original form <ref>Holycross ministries, sermons on Biblical apologetics.

The Manticore is also found in many modern works of fiction, ranging from fightable monsters in role playing games, to comic book monsters.

Talk:Creation Science

2007-04-06T15:34:30Z

RDre: New page: Umm...creation science doesn't equal intelligent design. It includes stuff like noah's flood geology, and magic changing isotopes, which ID doesn't touch upon. ~~~~

Umm...creation science doesn't equal intelligent design. It includes stuff like noah's flood geology, and magic changing isotopes, which ID doesn't touch upon. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 11:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal quotient

2007-04-06T15:21:18Z

RDre: According the the definition, LQ isn't measured in %

'''Liberal quotient''' is a new term coined by [[Conservapedia]] to quantify how [[liberal]] a group is. It is useful in assessing political bias and in evaluating statements or positions by such a group.

The liberal quotient is defined simply as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. Thus the liberal quotient is zero when there are no liberals in the group. The same number of conservatives and liberals will always result in the same liberal quotient, regardless of the size of other groups, such as moderates. While it is commonly used in Conservapedia to assess bias, researches prefer other measures. [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=947640#PaperDownload]

Groups having a high liberal quotient would include university faculties, the National Education Association, the leadership of the Democratic Party, the management of the ''Village Voice'' and ''New York Times'', and the leaders of the [[ACLU]]. Groups having a low liberal quotient would include a trade association of small business owners, an association of Christian athletes, and worshipers at church on an ordinary Sunday. An exeption to the latter would be black protestant church goers.

American journalists as a group have a liberal quotient of around 0.8. Television news anchors on the major networks had a liberal quotient of 1 until the [[Fox News Channel]] emerged.{{fact}}

Book

2007-03-31T14:45:59Z

RDre: New page: A '''book''' is a collection of written words, usually upon paper. The Bible is an example of a book, as well as a collection of books. Books are commonly used for educational purposes...

A '''book''' is a collection of written words, usually upon paper. The [[Bible]] is an example of a book, as well as a collection of books. Books are commonly used for educational purposes in the form of [[text books]], although there is concern about the accuracy of the information contain in them. Due to the high level of literacy required for some, books have on occasion been criticized as being elitist, although a number of books exist for children with a lower level of literacy required.

The Handmaid's Tale

2007-03-31T12:13:13Z

RDre: Novel article

'''The Handmaid's Tale''' is a novel set in the near future in which conservative Christianity has achieved ascendancy over the United States of America. Though often thought of as a dystopia, the novel contains many positive aspects, such as the outlawing of abortion, and the abolishion of the separation of church and state.

Fungi

2007-03-30T12:27:35Z

RDre: Add fungi article

Fungi are a kingdom of multicellular heterotrophs. They feed primarily on decomposing plant material, aided by their ability to produce cellulose.

Chitin

2007-03-30T12:23:46Z

RDre: Also found in fungi

The substance that makes up the outer shell of insects, and is also found in the cell wall of fungi <ref>Morphology of the fungi [http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fungi/fungimm.html]</ref>

A chemical that provides both toughness and flexibility.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Anaerobic organism

2007-03-30T11:57:24Z

RDre: Add conservatism

An Anaerobic Organism is an [[organism]] which can survive in the absence of [[oxygen]]. During the period of time which the prophet Jonah spent in the Biblical whale, it is consider likely that he was rendered anaerobic in order to survive in the oxygen-poor environment <ref>http://www.ex-atheist.com/contending-for-the-faith.html</ref>.

[[Category:Biology]]

Poi

2007-03-30T11:08:36Z

RDre: sp.

'''Poi''' is the term used to refer to the traditional martial dance of the maori people.. Traditionally, those who were proficient in poi were seen as more desirable, with the best performers being revered as minor gods according to the local religion <ref>http://www.luxotica.com/education/history.cfm</ref>.

===Christian criticisms===

As poi performances have become more common outsite of New Zealand they have drawn criticism from Christian groups for their depiction of a pagan religion, and close symbolic ties with satanism <ref>http://www.christchurchnz.org/religion/stoppoi.html</ref>. These strong criticisms shall hopefully prevent the spread of poi, or lead to the creation of a suitable Christian version.

Poi

2007-03-30T11:07:39Z

RDre: Recent trent in my area

'''Poi''' is the term used to refer to the traditional martial dance of the maori people.. Traditionally, those who were proficient in poi were seen as more desirable, with the best performers being revered as minor gods according to the local religion <ref>http://www.luxotica.com/education/history.cfm</ref>.

===Cristian criticisms===

As poi performances have become more common outsite of New Zealand they have drawn criticism from Christian groups for their depiction of a pagan religion, and close symbolic ties with satanism <ref>http://www.christchurchnz.org/religion/stoppoi.html</ref>. These strong criticisms shall hopefully prevent the spread of poi, or lead to the creation of a suitable Christian version.

Hair

2007-03-30T10:15:39Z

RDre: Hair article

Hair is the name for the covering of keratin fibre found in most mammals. In humans it is found densly only on the head and pubic regions. Human hair types are produced by a mixture of genetics and the effects of magnetic interaction during early development<ref>John Gray, Human Hair Diversity</ref>. Unlike the hair of other mammals, human hair is composed of living cells, and so is capable of becoming diseased which may result in baldness.