User talk:Aschlafly/Archive41

Conservapedia and Search Engines

Hello! I just left a message on the Supreme Court course enrollment page, and had an off-topic question. As I mentioned there, I just discovered Conservapedia during a web search. I have been online for years and have never seen Conservapedia anywhere. What is being done to get Conservapedia "out there" on the web and especially in search engines? Thanks! ecfmusic

Welcome. We are highly ranked in search engines for many key terms, but more efforts in editing, teaching, learning and publicizing are welcome! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:37, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you. How does one contribute to these "efforts" as an individual? I confess my lack of specific knowledge on how this is done, although I am aware that "sponsored" links can be bought. When I have probably seen tens of thousands of links on various search engines, but just one connecting to Conservapedia, it is obvious that a very low overall percentage of search links to the site exist at this point. Responses from anyone reading this post are welcome. ecfmusic 13:18, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Navigation templates should definetly increase rankings of articles, also linking words that should be but aren't, making a blog about conservapedia, making a specific article part of your signature for a forum, discussing conservapedia in forums and chatrooms --13:21, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

The Christian blog contest

Andy, I do think we might be able to get thousands and thousands of people knowing about Conservapedia though our contest. All we have to do is periodically say in the breaking news section the following: "Have a Christian blog and want more people to know about it? Please go Here." And of course, Conservapedians telling others about the contest would be helpful too. Conservative 11:45, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your response to my post under the thread above, which I retitled "Conservapedia and Search Engines." While word of mouth has historically one of the most effective ways to market a product or service, I am concerned that the millions of people who use search engines daily are being missed in the process. I do not propose buying "sponsored links," as I suspect that the money is not available for such a campaign; I rather wonder if other avenues, such as search tags or widgets could be used in a coordinated effort to get the word out. It might also to be good to add this topic to the "Help" menu and/or to the "Useful Links." Suggestions? ecfmusic 13:43, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Regarding removal of my articles here

I have been told that you are the person to which I should contact regarding removal of my articles. I have expressed that I no longer want to be involved in this project, and have also expressed that I want my articles here removed - as I do not want my name attached to them here. Regards LChriosa 14:17, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps, Andy could rename your account, all edits made by this account would say the name of the new user account --  Deborah (contributions) (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Deborah, I've responded on the talk for the Main Page.--Aschlafly 19:03, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Er, wasn't this just a hoax by someone posting copies of 19th century writings or earlier? (Just trying to see if we were trusting enough to be taken in (see assume good faith) or too ignorant to do a Bartleby search.

I'm getting a little tired of people coming here just to subvert the project. Of course, the constant subversion just proves that liberals will stoop at nothing to destroy those who disagree with them. I guess their ideology is too shallow and fragile to survive in the marketplace of ideas. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:15, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

why dont you

Why dont you discuss your reverts aschlafly? At the moment the article constitutes placement bias AdenJ 18:49, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

No, your edit was obvious placement bias. We put the important stuff up at the top here. Also, don't comment here, comment on the talk page for the entry.--Aschlafly 18:50, 16 May 2008 (EDT)--Aschlafly 18:50, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks

Thanks for unblocking me, I'll be slower in the categories now. --Panda95 14:35, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

I apologize

I am sorry for creating such a politically charged entry, I see how it could be hard to tell the difference between parody and the real thing in that case. I will refrain from injecting such extreme bias into articles. Thank you for only blocking me two hours. Lyra Belaqua ^talk 17:04, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Physics

Why did you revert my edit on Physics? It was correctly sourced. --CassieLott 21:46, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

It was completely inappropriate for where you placed it. Not every "correctly sourced" quote belongs at the beginning of an entry.--Aschlafly 21:48, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

CE and ISO 8601

Hello Mr. Schlafly,

I have a concern with the CE article. It mentions that BCE and CE are not recognized as part of ISO 8601, but ISO 8601 does not deal with the representations of eras, only dating formats. As such, ISO 8601 does not recognize BC and AD either (I have linked to the ISO 8601 at Talk:CE#ISO_8601). There is no ISO document regarding how eras should be referenced and represented. I think it would be more appropriate to research what MLA or APA standards are, but I don't have either of those manuals. As it stands, I think the article gives the misrepresentation that ISO covers something it does not.

Thank you, --Countryforchrist 10:28, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Good point, as far as I can tell. It was not my edit. I've removed the ISO 8601 reference per your suggestion.--Aschlafly 13:18, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Commentary on and around "Dear Aschlafly,"

[sorry if this seems peevish, but this is already a huge file to manipulate when editing, so I've added a section break for comments surrounding our conversation.]]

Liberals tend to cut off and censor debate while conservatives don’t? I’m not so sure about that. Take a look:

[1] [2] [3]

[4] [5] [6]

And that’s just from one debate. Of course, the ultimate irony will be when this is reverted (i.e. censored) and my account is blocked (Hi Karajou!) which I’m sure will be in a matter of seconds. Or you could practice what you preach and allow this to stay, maybe even reply, and unblock my account. You can see I haven’t vandalized, I use a proxy because it seems half the IPs in the world have been blocked. But it’s your site and you can do what you want. I am more than happy to participate in an honest and polite debate (and even to contribute some neutral, factual, apolitical content to this site, which it could use) but don’t pretend conservatives don’t censor debate while simultaneously censoring someone who tries to debate that very fact. It’s unbecoming. Jaguar 10:55, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

If you want to contribute by adding "neutral, factual, apolitical content" to the site, then do it. Don't wax nostalgic about what you could do, right? Are you waiting for fanfare first? Learn together 11:07, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

To be honest, I expected to be blocked by now, but seeing as I'm not (yet) I will get started. Now, if someone does take it upon themselves to block me for merely using a proxy, will you unblock me so I can continue what I start? Jaguar 11:16, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I will not override the decisions of another Sysop. Obviously adding worthwhile content will make you less likely to be blocked. Learn together 11:21, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh Really? Jaguar 13:34, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

"Jaguar", we have clear rules against sockpuppets and it's tiresome when liberals don't curb abuse by (or even criticize) other liberals. You're not using your real name, you're apparently not using your own IP address, and you're not recognizing vandalism by liberals. Why not wear a ski mask also??? Say something intelligent and people will listen here. Continue to whine on my talk page and I'll block your account.--Aschlafly 14:12, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not really sure how exactly I'm supposed to "curb abuse" by liberals or anyone else. I'm just a lowly sort-of editor here with a sword of Damocles hanging over my head, probably one talk page post away from an permanent block. I have no powers to do anything beyond revert vandalism on this site, should I happen to see it. And I'm willing to do that. I find it odd that you seem so certain I refuse to criticize liberals. I've made about 5 talk pages posts here and I guess I have not criticized liberals, I haven't defended them en masse, and I haven't criticized Satanists, Nazis, Scientologists, rapists, child abusers, etc., either. Does that indicate that I refuse to? Sure, undoubtedly liberals have vandalized this site. Shame on them. But I have also pointed out several cases of people being banned and having their comments reverted in ongoing debates when they have not vandalized or broken rules, as well as an example of a username blocked when the only edits have been starting new useful articles (if the editor is a vandal or the edits are bad, should not William Proxmire and Eamon de Valera be deleted?). I just find it odd when liberals are said to censor debate, while conservatives thrive on it when several debates here have been (for lack of a better word) censored by conservatives. As for my username, true, it is not my real name. Most users, it seems, do not use their real names here, and while there is a rule against "frivolous" usernames, I really don't think this one qualifies. It's an noble animal and a fine car. I can hardly think of anything less offensive. So that's it. Call it "whining" if you like; it doesn't faze me. I'll get back to editing now. It seems geography is generally uncontroversial area which can use more entries. Feel free to let me know if any of these contributions have problems. Jaguar 21:59, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

So what if he doesn't use his real name? Many users (And Sysops) on this website do not. That seems a bit like a Double Standard, something that Liberals have a monopoly on, or so it seems from reading this site. JEdgar 17:11, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Um, Andy's not referring to usernames (e.g. Jaguar, JEdgar, Jinxmchue) but the name you are required to enter upon signing up. Jaguar probably signed up with "Joe Blow" or something else obviously fake. Did you enter a fake name, too, JEdgar? Jinxmchue 21:43, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Um, you're not required to enter a name upon signing up. --HHCrippen 00:50, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Um, actually, you are. If you go to the "Create account" page, it asks for username, password, email and real name. Jinxmchue 11:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

The real name is optional. FernoKlump 13:18, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

---

Conservative girls do not have a high demand for guys who adhere to a liberal belief system. We've got Liberal friendship, perhaps someone should start Conservative relationships... StatsMsn 05:46, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I cant imagine liberal guys wanting much to do with a conservative girl anyway. And Az (john) and phillip rayment, I think you are right on the money. Many people have may various beliefs and ideas and one cannot be said to be better than the other or more right. I also find it interesting that the US with its looser gun laws has more gun crime than Australia and NZ with their tight laws. AdenJ 06:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

There is some line of cognitive dissonance involved in automatically blocking anybody who makes liberal arguments, but it is understandable for one who pays for a website's bandwidth not to want to run up the bandwidth up with debates when the debating is peripheral to the main purpose of the website. DanH 15:21, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

This page is currently 59 kb in size (or so the link at the top said). Following this link will give you something about half the size of the page and this link will give you something 5x larger than the current talk page. The blocking anyone who makes an argument from a liberal point of view seems to be... odd. The original design for the wiki software was a collaboration tool. Most wikis out there are about collaborative work - and collaboration requires discussion to come to agreement on what is there. Wikipedia just happens to be an encyclopedia built on top of collaboration software. It seems odd for a page with content in a wiki to be locked down and people blocked for attempting to collaborate (not everyone understands the issues in the same way as the idealized conservative viewpoint). The best way to control who/what is on a talk page is to increase the barrier to entry rather than censoring the arguments and blocking the users. This would likely also reduce the workload on the administrators and allow them to create quality articles that would set examples for how the rest of the site should look instead of blocking nearly every user that creates an account. --Rutm 15:49, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, only stating that I can understand such actions. DanH 16:17, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreement is not required, if some of the "contributors" oppose the goals of the project. We require liberals to refrain from making ideological edits: they (like us) may only enter trustworthy information.

Users are not blocked for "collaboration" but for breaking down the collaborative process. Instead of working with us, they work against us. Some arguments are unproductive.

What I'd like to see from advocates of liberal ideas is not simply to assert that these ideas are true - but to identify the spokesmen who most prominently advocate the ideas. Also, to give the reasons (if any) that the spokesmen and defenders of these ideas put forth in their support.

Don't waste our time trying to turn each article into a sort of blog entry. That will just get your account blocked again. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:59, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

One can read further up on this page (and others) to see a difference in opinions on gun control. Noting that you take issue with climate change, a quick look at http://www.christiansandclimate.org/ or http://www.creationcare.org/ and you will see a group that would be considered social conservative Christians who disagree with the stance that you take. When an article is loaded with bias the question is how does one fix it? The general response appears to be "thats the way its going to be - block anyone who disagrees." Every alternative viewpoint counter to the one given by becomes recast in a negative light. There is a deep cognitive dissonance in claiming that someone trying to add material that does not agree with makes it into a blog while the original article figuratively drips with the author's own bias. --Rutm 17:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

To be honest, I think there's a certain level of cognitive dissonance involved in attempting to post to a site with a clearly-identified ideology, and then being in any way surprised or offended when ideas that are contrary to that ideology are not accepted. It seems a bit like walking up to a cage with a label that says "If You Put Your Fingers Through The Bars, You'll Get Bitten"--and then being surprised when putting a finger through the bars results in getting bitten.

I don't agree with all of Mr. Schlafly's viewpoints, or those of the SysOps here. However, I acknowledge that this is their site, specifically created to give them a place to express those views. As such, I regard myself in much the same way I would if I were a visitor in someone else's house, and endeavor to conduct myself accordingly.

--Benp 16:11, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Springing forth with a new bunch of articles

Materialism and science, Darwinism and materialism, Atheism and science, Evolution and religion, Science and motivation, Intelligent design of life, Hydrocarbon use, Sea level increase, Availability of guns, Boorstin, Glacier shortening, History of Sexuality, Feminist theory, Sam Dash, Uncle Tom, Snowflake, Mole (espionage), Outdoor art, History of painting, Random number --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:36, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Awesome, Ed! Hope you can make our June 5th special event!--Aschlafly 21:34, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Categories

Hello, I was going through the list of "red" categories to see if I could fix any, and I wanted to change the non-working category of "journals" in the page: http://www.conservapedia.com/British_Medical_Journal to the established category: http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Medical_Journals - but this article is "protected" - if someone could please be so kind as to temporarily "unprotect" this page so I can change the category, or if someone else could change it, I would appreciate it, thanks! (and if there is a better place to leave this type of request in the future, please do let me know, so I'll not be cluttering your talk page up with requests). -- Taj 10:21, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Done as requested. I don't know why it was protected. Thanks, Taj, for your efforts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aschlafly (talk)

Thank you very much. I'm just going through uncategorized pages list right now, to see if I can help out in anything, if there's anything better you need done please don't hesitate to ask. :) -- Taj 10:31, 22 May 2008 (EDT)