User talk:RSchlafly

ARCHIVES: 1

Clean

Enjoy your nice, clean talk page! --ηοξιμαχονγ^θαλκ 19:15, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

I would appreciate your support

Dear RSchlafly,

I am sending you a note about the uncited template and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, I would appreciate your efforts in supporting the uncited template.

Conservative 15:40, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

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

1992 Election

Nice revert. Ferret 18:51, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

Catch-22

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

See [1] or [2]. RSchlafly 18:21, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Hi! :)

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

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

Theory and Fact

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

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

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

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

Twin Primes question

Roger, do you think there are an infinite number of twin primes? Do you think it is provable (though obviously not proven yet)?