Changes

68,837 bytes added , 22:21, May 7, 2007

archive

== Question about home schooled students ==

I sometimes assist my cousin in home schooling her children and want to know your opinion on a matter. It seems the children have begun to watch rap and hip-hop videos. They have mimicked some of the dance moves and behavior of such rappers. To me and my cousins disgust they often move the areas of the buttocks and pelvis in their dance moves. We have tried to substitute their desire to dance in this manner by having them take square dancing lessons. They are no longer watching these videos but they still sometimes dance like this. How should we solve this problem. Any advise from someone as experienced in homeschooling as you would be valued. Thanks for your time.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 00:36, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: Our culture is in a sorry state. Stay away from the rap and hip-hop videos and music, I suppose. Get the students in some good homeschooling groups. That takes an effort, but there should be good groups in your area. That's what we've done in my area, and I tell everyone that if they don't socialize, then they won't be homeschooling long. Their children will end up going to public school just to meet people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:26, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reverted racism edits ==
WHY DID YOU REVERT ME?? [[User:Tyhorm|Tyhorm]] 11:01, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: Your edits are inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and the one I reverted was unsupported. Your account is on the verge of being blocked. Please adhere to our [[rules]]. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Even the liberal WIkipedia has a "kike" article. Wikipedia has articles on things that aren't politically correct, yet this conservative encyclopedia is completely PC. I am seeing a pattern here. [[User:Tyhorm|Tyhorm]] 11:26, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Your edits are unsupported and focused on racism. They strike me as a parody. I'm deleting your last entry [[reverse racism]] and if you post one more racial opinion then your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::This user was blocked; he was pushing racism from within his edits, as well as encouraging use of foul language as per his user page. His source of authority for this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hate_crime&diff=prev&oldid=140239] was a KKK website. This was one of the many who jump in here to try to push the envelope. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Can I ask how that is different from [[Political Correctness]]? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:59, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==More articles I started==

[[Mockery]],
[[Mental illness]],
[[Farley Mowat]],
[[Psychiatrist]],
[[Intolerance]],
[[Sallie Baliunas]],
[[Resurrection of Jesus Christ]],
[[Promiscuity]],
[[Anger]],
[[Laura Schlesinger]],
[[Newspeak]],
[[Jack McConnell]],
[[Carl Bernstein]],
[[Groundhog Day]],
[[Ethics and morals]],
[[Martin Malachi]],
[[Gender identity disorder]],
[[Marketplace of ideas]],
[[Psychologists]],
[[Sexual revolution]],
[[Todd Beamer]],
[[Palestinian]],
<s>[[Feedback]]</s> [[Audio feedback]],
[[Artificial sweeteners]],
[[Cloud cover]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:59, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Bold and daring clarification of the above, "Feedback" was moved to "Audio feedback" (and was indeed started by Mr. Poor), but the current "Feedback" article was later on filled in by me :-) More on-topic: Wow, you are a powerhouse when it comes to creating articles! It's nice to see sysops setting high standards like that. --[[User:Chokaza|Chokaza]] 14:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request to stop uploading "junk"==
Dear Mister Aschlafly Iam sorry if you think I was junk uploading. I think that encyclopaedia articles with out pictures look boring so was trying to illustrate article. Many articles here are not well laid out and look dull. You are probably right that two pictures of procsesed pork is to much, perhaps one would be acceptable? I am keen photographer and like to make nice studio pictures. If I could do other pictures for you then please know me. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 15:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Resignation ==

Mr. Schlafly: I thought I should let you know that after careful consideration, I have found it impossible to continue contributing to this project. I have outlined the reasons for this on my [[User:AKjeldsen#TEKEL.3B_Thou_art_weighed_in_the_balances.2C_and_art_found_wanting_.28Dan_5:27.29|userpage]], in case you are interested. Thank you. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 16:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: Part of the liberal ideology is to deny that there is liberal bias. See [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]] There plainly is liberal bias and if highlighting the liberal bias on Wikipedia causes liberal editors to leave this project, then all I can say is that I hope you reconsider and return.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Conservapedia:Improvement‎ ==

I created [[Conservapedia:Improvement‎]]. Can we link it to the main page?

:I linked it on the word "improve" in ''Let's all improve these'' ... --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:24, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Talk:Bias in Wikipedia==
Re: the deluge bit, I'd like to add a quotation from wikipedia's Myth page:
<blockquote>
Myth may refer to:

* Mythology, mythography, or folkloristics. In these academic fields, a myth (mythos) is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths often are said to take place before recorded history begins. In saying that a myth is a sacred narrative, what is meant is that a myth is believed to be true by people who attach religious or spiritual significance to it. Use of the term by scholars does not imply that the narrative is either true or false.
</blockquote>
I think this is important to note, because users here are interpreting myth to have a false connotation, but the anthropologists, etc. who use the term make no claim of falsity.--[[User:Eldepeche|Eldepeche]] 18:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Several points in response.
:* Whilst it is true that certain academics use "myth" that way, it is just as true that the word as ''connotations'' (at a minimum) of the story being false, and articles on Wikipedia are written for a general audience, not for academics in those fields.
:* The term is applied selectively. I could argue that evolution is "a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form" (evolutionist Michael Ruse, for one, has admitted that evolution is treated as a religion my many of its followers), yet I'm absolutely certain that Wikipedia editors would not allow evolution to be labelled as "mythology".
:* The definition seems to suggest that the the "sacred" part of it is the main aspect. Creationists consider the creation and flood accounts as ''history'', more than ''sacred stories that are true''. All/much history has meaning (especially history concerned with origins, as it helps explain why things are the way they are), so I'm not denying that creation and the flood are used to teach why things are the way they are, but to pick out particular historical claims and labelling them ''myth'' whilst not doing the same to others (e.g. the origins of democracy), is to denigrate those historical claims as something that believers believe to be true but the rest of us don't, although we won't offend by saying so.
:In summary, the labelling of such things as "myth" is part of the bias of Wikipedia, supported by intellectual-sounding arguments like you've put.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Found a poem you might want for the site==

Its called "the mother" by Gwendolyn Brooks. Its an interesting poem about a mother who had abortions and later came to regret the choice. I thought you might like it for the abortion article, or maybe try to do a conservapedia version of Wikisource.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:57, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: Please make sure that this is properly used and permission from the estate of the author. It is an artistic work by another person and quoting it may fall well outside the realm of fair use. It has not entered the public domain yet (published in 1945). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sigh, I never said I was going to use it. I suggested that it might be something to think about. I am not sure how exactly Wikisource operates anyway. Also, if this site has the intent of being an academic resource, I'm pretty sure that it would fall under fair use. Anyway, I was never planning on using it myself, I was merely brining it's existence to light. Who knows, perhaps he could use it for a main-page link.

::: Just because a website claims to be academic in nature does not give it carte blanche to use and republish whatever resources it wants to. Literature text books (an academic resource) do not fall under fair use. The [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Copyright_policy copyright policy] for Wikisource is quite clear, and there is absoultely nothing saying you cannot put material that is in the public domain on Wikisource that is of a conservative nature.[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:George_W._Bush] Even then, Wikisource is very strict about honoring intellectual property and copyright. When dealing with copyrighted works, you enter the realm of possibly facing statutory damages up to $150,000 if the copyright violation was willful (Title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States of America Section 504, Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits (c)(2) [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504]). If you want to read the specifics of the fair use, that is section 107.[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107] There is a ''big'' difference between material for teaching (handed out in the classroom) and the entire work published on a publicly accessible website. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
Mr. Schlafly, for the "today in history" section maybe you might mention that tomorrow may 3 is the national day of prayer[http://www.ndptf.org/press_room/Index.cfm?Entity=4&Department=4&Dept_Order=1&This_TopicOrder=8&This_SubtopicOrder=1#3]?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

==New articles for Breaking news==
*At the cost of losing 160,000 friends, Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign has taken over control of the MySpace page listed under his name on the popular social networking site. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269725,00.html Democratic Presidential Hopeful Barack Obama Takes Control of MySpace Page From Former Supporter]There's many more articles [[User:Crocoite%5CNews_Articles |here]] - [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 03:26, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

This is an interesting one. Muslim women in France are using Hymen reconstruction surgery to regain their "Virginity"

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSL2532025120070430?pageNumber=1

--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:32, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Another one: "Most agriculture experts say milk prices will jump in coming months as producers pass along increased costs for livestock feed (read: higher corn prices because of ethanol [used to tamp down alleged global warming])
http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/02/news/economy/corn_milkprices/index.htm?cnn=yes
--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 08:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Milk prices ''in the U.S.'', of course. Don't forget there is a rest-of-the-world out there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

New Muslim articles
*Extremists reportedly persecuting Iraqi Christians by kidnapping them, demanding their families convert to Islam or pay ransoms[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270377,00.html Christians Fleeing Violence in Iraq]
*Muslim extremists in long white robes attacked a children's festival at a U.N.-run elementary school with guns and homemade bombs Sunday, killing a politician's bodyguard in plain view of terrified youngsters — just the latest incident of lawlessness engulfing the Gaza Strip. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270306,00.html Muslim Extremists Attack Gaza Elementary School]
*Mobile phone videos have appeared on the internet showing an Iraqi mob stoning and kicking to death 17-year-old girl after she offended her minority community by eloping with a Muslim man. [http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/video-of-iraqi-girls-stoning-released-on-internet/2007/05/05/1177788472536.html Video of Iraqi girl's stoning released on internet]
*Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami met Pope Benedict on Friday and said the wounds between Christians and Muslims were still “very deep” [http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=54462 ‘Christian-Muslim wounds very deep’]
[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 01:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks much. God bless you. Will post some of these Monday.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:41, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==Notice of likely blocking==
What racist remarks are you referring to, and what in the Alexander Hamilton entry was biased? I did remove something from the Hamilton entry, but that was becuase it was a needless reapeating of information already contained in the article. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here: {{QuoteBox|I mean no disrespect, but the reason that most people (those who sincerely want to improve the encyclopedic aspects of this project) used the “n-word” was to illustrate how offensive the “f-word” (the one that began this debate) could be. I understand why you would get angry, and I have the impression that a few users probably enjoyed the opportunity to say '''the n-word.''' --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 17:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)}}
:--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I referred to users. Not editors. BTW, I repsonded to what you said about Hamilton on my talk page. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 10:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I indicated that the editors were unwilling to do anything about the "f-word," which is why I, and others on this site made the rather obvious connection to the "N-word." As for Hamilton, I wrote that the United States was able to retire the Revolutionary War debt through a combination of tariffs and taxes. That my friend, is not "liberal opinion." That is history. Hamilton did not like taxes, but he realized (after witnessing the inabilty of the Articles of Confedration Congress to fund the war) that they were neccessary.--1048247 10:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 10:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: Users are editors. Your statement implied that others are racist. Your account will be blocked for falsely accusing people of being racist. Obvious enough?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::wrong, Users are anyone who comes on and looks at the site, editors are people with accounts who make edits. what that has to do with the debate, is beyond me. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It's the (registered) ''editors'' who have a ''user name''. I think the terms are interchangeable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

So, let me if I understand this. I was debating the use of derogatory language. I realized that this is a sensative topic. I even did not directly state the offensive terms (I used "f-word" and "n-word"). So, if other people use offensive language (you deleted most of the discussion prior to my remark) in a more direct manner, that is OK. But I am to be banned? You did not respond to my remarks regarding Hamilton.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 11:19, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:Hey guy-with-numbers-for-name, you're right about Hamilton on taxes. Why'd it get deleted?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:14, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

You need to ask Aschlafly.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 11:19, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: User:1048247, I made myself clear and you seem to be in denial. We'll give you a second chance. But more liberal falsehoods, like falsely implying your opponents are racists, will result in blocking your account.

: Hamilton on taxes? Folks, higher taxes did not put the United States on sound footing. That's a liberal falsehood. Stick to the facts, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, no one's trying to push an agenda here, but it's a fact that Hamilton & the founders had to assume pretty extreme measures to pay down the Revolutionary War debt, or the nation would never have taken off. I'm anti-high taxes today, but it's just fact that they were needed then. And who are you that you get to censor & threat to block?-11:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: Quit posting to my talk page. I'm not going to repeat myself here again. Reread what I wrote if you like, and take further discussion to the appropriate content page. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I did not imply that my opponents are racists (indeed, I did not think of them as "opponents."). You will note that I provided references when I edited the Hamilton piece. Could you tell how Hamilton's support for excise taxes was liberal, and how is it false? He did support it, and along with the tariffs and other measures, it enabled the nascent United States to retire its war debt--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 11:52, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I don't think it's right to essentially invoke "cloture," close debate when it's unsettled, and then block the user you're having a disagreement with. I don't want to get blocked - I'm honestly trying to understand - but I don't think things like that create a good environment for others to work in. So, don't block '''me''', you're obviously a sysop who has no compunctions about quick-blocking, but I hope I get to stick around. Just trying to encourage decency around here.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 12:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Billy, that editor denied the basis of my warning and repeatedly pestered me on my talk page, even after being warned to stop. Read #11 in [[Differences with Wikipedia]]. His block was only one day. I suggest that you do not continue to post on my talk page in an unproductive manner either, or your account will be blocked. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
<div style="border:4px solid blue; width: 50%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: 5px; text-align: center; background: red;"><big>'''THIS IS MY PERSONAL TALK PAGE !'''</big> Users with complaints about Administrator (Sysop) actions please use this link:[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Sysop/Admin_Abuse]]. For editing abuse please follow this link:[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Abuse]]. Keep in mind that disputes should first be posted on the particular "Talk" page involved, and only if the matter cannot be resolved, esclated to the above links. '''''Other topics I am pleased to discuss here.''''' </div>

== WALLY SCHIRRA ==

WALLY SCHIRRA, ONE OF AMERICA'S SEVEN ORIGINAL 'RIGHT STUFF' ASTRONAUTS, DEAD AT 84
:Schirra was a childhood hero of mine. He was a true American hero, and anyone across the political spectrum can agree with that. Andy, if you'd put it on the Main Page, I'd write an article about the Mercury Seven as a tribute to Schirra's bravery.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 02:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[user:MontyZuma]]==
If you please, unblock this user; this is based on my mistake of a certain dish served in England. The article itself may need to be reviewed to pass muster. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and unblock him, though his edit to [[contraception]] was inexplicable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:21, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

He's one of the users who cluttered my talk page (not that I should be complaining to you, of all people, about having one's talk page cluttered) complaining to me when I deleted certain entries, and he claimed he "didn't know" that certain derogatory words "had negative connotations in the colonies". He's up to no good. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:26, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, Dan. I've blocked him for a month based on what you said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::What am I missing here?
::* His "cluttering" of DanH's talk page amounted to three posts. That's hardly excessive.
::* How does not knowing that some words have negative connotations in the U.S. constitute being up to no good?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*I think we have a venue for these types of questions, eh Philip? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:26, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOP ColinR made a ideological edit to the astronomy article ==

SYSOP ColinR made a ideological edit to the [[astronomy]] article. I deleted the material that stated that is was a fact that the universe was billions of years old in the [[Astronomy]] article as it is not a fact and breaks a conservapedia rule. I put in the young earth creationists views and nowhere did I state they were fact. Thus, I complied with the conservapedia commandments. Sysop ColinR removed the young earth creationist material and put in the "it is a fact that the universe is old" material. Therefore, I charge ColinR with breaking a conservapedia commandment and committing a ideaological edit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:We don't block for ideology, though. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:57, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Too soon to block. I've commented on the discussion page for that entry as to why the reversion was correct, and discussion should continue there. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:::ColinR is again engaging in ideological edits. He wants to gut the quotes which show the inadequecy of naturalistic explanations for various astronomical bodies. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

All ColinR said was the time = distance divided by velocity. That's not an ideological edit. That's the definition of velocity. --[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 23:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== liberals ==

Why do you use the word "liberal" as a tool to dismiss an argument in its entirety? Do you think that liberals are really bad people? --[[User:StevenRhodes|StevenRhodes]] 12:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Liberals seem to deny and avoid the word. I describe an argument or person as liberal just as I describe an argument or person as conservative. I'm a teacher and see no reason to hide the truth. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

You didn't answer the question, so maybe I'll put it more bluntly. Let's say there's a liberal version of you. If he hears a conservative argument, he assumes it is being made by someone that hates freedom and wants to see America destroyed. He tells his students that all conservative thought is wrong, simply because it is made by a conservative. Why is he wrong, and what makes you so sure? --[[User:StevenRhodes|StevenRhodes]] 13:23, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: In your hypothetical the teacher is lying. I don't lie to make a point. In fact, I've repeatedly criticize [[deceit]] here, as often used by enemies of Conservapedia. My use of the term liberal is factual and informative. I'm baffled why liberals want to deny or censor use of this term. Maybe you can explain why you don't like use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::My teacher can't be lying - the teacher is a carbon-copy of you in every facet other than political belief. If you want to allege the anti-Schlafly is a liar, you've just conceded that you are a deceitful liar. Thanks, that's all I needed to know. --[[User:StevenRhodes|StevenRhodes]] 13:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::: In other words, the [[Parthian shot]] by the above liberal criticism is to call me "a deceitful liar." With that name-calling, he exits. I'm going to add that to [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Andy, would you consider any ideas that are different from status quo to be liberal?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, we define [[liberal]] and [[conservative]] in detail. Most people understand well what is meant by the terms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::If you are so attached to the truth, why does your site so persistently attempt to hide the truth? Why did you misrepresent the Puritans as being "opposed to slavery" when anyone who's bothered to do even perfunctory research on them will quickly discover that they not only kept slaves, but dealt in the slave trade? Why do you claim that Jamestown -- an explicitly capitalist enterprise, in which the means of production were owned, not by the workers, but by the Viriginia Company -- lived under "socialism?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:35, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: PF Fox, I made changes based on your suggestions. Have you changed your views based on things you've learned here? Give me some examples of your open-mindedness towards conservatism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Obviously this StevenRhodes clown is the problem [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Aschlafley, your lecture still claims that “from 1607-1608, the Jamestown settlement lived under socialism,” a statement that you seem to have based less on whether or not the settlers in that explicitly capitalistic company town owned the means of production than on the date at which John Smith made his “don’t work, don’t eat” comment. And the notion that you were unaware that the Puritans kept and dealt in slaves is, frankly, so astonishing that I find it hard to credit. Heck, I figured out that slaves were kept in the Massachusetts Bay Colony way back in junior high school when we learned that the Salem witch trials originated with a slave named Tituba telling spooky stories to a group of girls. How in world did you manage to miss it? How in the world would anyone who has read anything about the Puritans -- and I presume you did at least a little research before writing that lecture -- have missed it?

:::No, nothing I’ve seen here has caused me to “change my views” because, sadly, nothing I’ve seen here has surprised me. This site is not dedicated to the “truth,” or at least, not truth as most people, liberal, moderate, and conservative, define “truth.” This site is dedicated to offering profoundly insulated children a revisionist account of history and language, and to inculcate in them a knee-jerk assumption that if someone is a liberal, they are also mindless liars or dupes. I don’t doubt that you sincerely regard this dangerous bigotry towards liberals as “truth” but it’s a “truth” you seem to have little confidence in because you apparently feel that it must be supported on a foundation of misrepresentation. How else to explain your omission of important facts of history (like slavery among the Puritans) to sell the notion that the religious freedom espoused by Roger Williams somehow led to Rhode Island embracing slavery? How else to explain your reluctance to acknowledge that, even after his death, Williams' approach to separating church and state was embraced by Jefferson and imparted to our constitution?

:::I’m not sure what you mean by “open-mindedness towards conservatism.” There are certainly conservatives I’ve admired even as I disagreed with them, like Winston Churchill, but I think a primary example of my “open mindedness” would be my awareness that you and your site do not truly represent conservatism. I grew up in the deep south. I knew, and still know, many conservatives, and I know that they include people who disagree with me on many issues, but still value science, still consider facts rather than ideology the best starting point when discussing history, and don’t consider “shut up” a rational argument. I have never and would never state that because someone is a conservative, that they are by definition irrational and dishonest and not to be trusted.

:::And I would certainly never attempt to spread that kind of hatred by teaching it to children. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: PF Fox, your 550-word diatribe above is disrespectful, to say the least. I've made numerous changes at your suggestion. It's time for you to make some changes on your side. Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::So your only response to my "diatribe" is the complaint that I'm being "disrespectful." Sorry, but I see no reason to think that you warrant more than the usual share of respect due human beings because they are human beings, especially when you insult countless people you've never met based solely on the fact that they are liberals. So long as you engage in that kind of mindless prejudice, Mr. Schlafley, that assessment of mine is not going to change, whatever else you may decide to do. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: PF Fox, don't post any more to my User talk page. See #11 in [[Differences with Wikipedia]]. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sir... ==

As you may have been otherwise engaged, I [[Talk:Essay:Liberal_Behavior_on_Conservapedia|repeat]] myself here:

Do you see neither the danger in, nor basic wrong-headedness of, sweeping generalisations re. a particular group's character and "typical" behaviours?

The historical precedents for such modes of talk are unfortunate, to say the least. The Jew, the Negro, the Bourgeoisie.....all have been fastened with a similarly reductionist pin at one time or another. Whilst I'm sure you would wish to join with me in condemning this ignoble tradition, your words have a resonance that does you no credit.

If this site attracts ridicule, then you must ''at least consider the possibility'' that this is because it ''deserves'' it. You have an opportunity here to shape how the wider world perceives your particular branch of Christianity. Unless your intent was to create a general impression of mean-spirited and contrary<ref>''kuhn-'''trair'''-ee'' - perverse; stubbornly opposed or willful. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=contrary</ref> zealotry, then it is one you have singularly failed to grasp.

<references/>

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 14:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

===Forgot to look deeper in the dictionary===
The definition of liberal, from ''Webster's Unabridged Dictionary'' (Vol. 2, Britannica, Inc. 1986) contains the traditional views of liberalism, such as tolerant (but not here), generous (but not here), openhandedness (but not here), and the following, all on page 1303, column 1:
:''3a: free from restraint or check; unchecked by a sense of the decorous, the fitting, or the polite (''possessed a liberal tounge that was offensive to people) b. lacking significant moral restraints; LICENCIOUS.''
:''SYN; LIBERAL, the most general term, suggests an emancipation from convention, tradition, or dogma that extends from a belief in altering institutions to fit altering conditions to a preference for lawlessness. On the one hand it suggests a commendable pragmatism, tolerance, and broadmindedness and on the other a highly questionable unorthodoxy, experimentationalism, or positive irresponsibility.''
The fact of the matter as pertaining to Conservapedia, is that the many liberals who come here are very much intolerant of this site, and make every effort to live up to both definitions from Websters that I provided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Some dictionaries, like some encyclopedias, give politically correct meanings. I doubt we'd agree with its definitions for conservative or capitalism either. Thirty years ago the dictinary did not recognize [[Common Era]] as a legitimate term. Now it claims that is a legitimate term.

:But if anyone agrees with that dictionary's meaning of liberal, then why are so many liberals here embarrassed to admit they're liberal???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Probably an admission they're wrong. Who knows! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:52, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

And to think I took the trouble to point out vandalism in your excellent [[Bible]] article. Here's looking at you, kid. *shakes head sadly*

@ [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] *shrugs.....and walks away*

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 15:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: You lost me with that oomment. What's your point? Dictionaries are imperfect and have biases, as illustrated by politically charged definitions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== On Astronomy and quotes ==

I believe that with our discussion previously I had shown that the quotes that were included in the page were not supportive of the position that was given and that those quoted were talking about something else. Could you (or another similarly empowered) please re-examine the larger excerpts of the articles that are in the talk page for [[astronomy]] and comment on how appropriate the quotes are? Additionaly, the links for the references themselves go to a page of quotes rather than the full text of the article. This makes it difficult for anyone wishing to read the full text and see the context of the quotes to do so. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

With all the recent vandalism, I'm sure your attention has been elsewhere. I am just curious if you have had any time to look at the issue on astronomy or can refer me to a person who does have the ability to make a call on the validity of the quotes being used when taken into the context of the articles they were quoted from and the background of the person making the quote. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:11, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: I looked at this and the astronomy entry could benefit from some beefing up. I found the quotes to be informative also, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Did you read the talk page that included the context where the quotes were from? They were taken out of context - for example:
<blockquote>Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries. As some monitoring records approach the requisite 12 years, Doppler detection of extrasolar Jupiters may not be far off. And searches are in the works for terrestrial-sized planets by looking for planets passing in front of their stars. But Tremaine remains cautious about what these searches will turn up. Speaking as a theorist, he notes that "most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong."</blockquote>
:: Taking the last sentence alone leaves out the first sentence which suggest that the theories presented in the paper are on the right track. There are also issues with one quotes being 24 years old and significant advances in astronomy since then. Furthermore, the refrences for the quotes themselves link to a page of quotes rather the text of the article. This makes it difficult for anyone wishing to read the full text and see the context of the quotes to do so. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:56, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Peace negotiations ==

Andrews Palop, on behalf of the Icewedge Liberation Organisation (the ILO) are willing to negotiate peace. If you wish to commence negotiations, contact Andrews Palop on MSN at barryshambles@hotmail.co.uk. You have one week to do this. During this time there will be a ceasefire.

Hugz and kissez

Andrews Palop

:You're not as annoying as you think you are, "Icewedge". What are you trying to "liberate"? You told me you're 15 years old. Why don't you go ride a bike or read a book. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Can I assume, therefore, that you reject our offer of peace? - Andrews Palop

It's silly to declare a ceasefire if only one side is firing shots. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Therefore I fail to see why it does not benefit you to accept this offer. - Andrews Palop

:: What is the "offer"? To give you my email address???

:: This is an educational site. Contribute to it, learn from it, and try to add some insight here. Stick around and do something of value. Do something that improves yourself and others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Believe me, we have the interests of this website's goals at heart. However we believe that this website's conservative bias has swayed it from its original goals. We seek peace terms to rectify this. - Andrews Palop

Tell us who "we" are. By chance, is the "we" a group of public school students? Also, what do you think "its original goals" are?

One day you might ask yourself why you spent so much of your time vandalizing other people's property, when you could have been improving your own future instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Look, do you want to negotiate peace or not? - Andrews Palop

You know I'm already talking to you on MSN. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:00, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Many people here are trying to help create a good reference site; either help by positively contributing, or allow us to work in peace. thank you --[[User:Taj|Taj]] 19:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

lol, only if you agree to our terms - Andrews Palop

:: if someone is baking a spice cake and you only like banana cake, does that give you a right to come into the kitchen and destroy it so no one else can have it? choose the banana cake for yourself, but allow people who like spice cake to have the right to make their own choice as well. --[[User:Taj|Taj]] 21:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: OK, DanH turned out to have a very disagreeable personality. We'd like to speak to Aschlafy himself. - Andrews Palop

Apparently you don't want to talk with me. You mentioned having a view of what Conservapedia's "original goals" are, and I asked you what you meant by that. You didn't answer me. Also, you didn't answer this: you're a public school student, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: If you wish to discuss this, it must be on MSN. However, yes, I am a public school student. I didn't have my rich parents pay for me to be homeschooled. :( - Andrews Palop
:::homeschooling is expensive?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

: Homeschooling is virtually free. I guess you don't know anyone who is homeschooled. You really should try to get out more.

: I don't have an account on MSN, and don't give out my email address. If you want to talk, this is my talk page and I have some time now. If you don't want to talk, then I'm going to spend my time learning, editing, and debating with others here. Actually, I think I'll say some prayers in the next ten minutes, so you can take your time responding or deciding to do something else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Why are we actually even talking to this kid? Just one 15 year old vandal amongst others, not an equal with the site administrators to make "deals" about anything. It's sad that he has nothing better to do than vandalize places like this, but why are some people playing along in this, attention is what he wants and to be regonized as equal amongs more mature people with some real goals and jobs. He is no real trouble, he has no skills to cause serious damage to the site other than silly edits. If anything, this is just a sign that he is tired. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

This is palop from the icewedge user page at wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Icewedge]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

So Aschlafly@aol.com from schlafly.net isn't valid anymore?
:I believe that contact, email and AIM, used to be on the site somewhere. But I can't remember where, so I don't know if it is fair to Andy's privacy to confirm it. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Oh, yes, it was at [[DMCA_Agent]], linked from the front page. It may only be for copyright inquiries, though. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

My point, before I was blocked (by the way, neither Allie or jEM are Icewedge and I'm not in the least bit interested in vandalising your site) is that Andy's AOL email address is pretty much public domain (try Google, it's on the first page of results). So why these pranksters need it is a mystery to me. Allie..xxx

At some point, like the Prodigal Son, we all look at ourselves in the mirror and ask why we're doing something that harms ourselves and, in this case, harms other people also. There have been people a lot older than Mr. "Palop" who have acted worse here. But some of them wake up and return to do some good. Hopefully Mr. "Palop" will become of those who puts his talents to better use for himself and others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ah, that mirror. I hope you didn't mind my "outing" your Aol address, though I guess it's not a secret. I'll be contacting you via AIM soon re:apologies I owe? Soon. Thank you all for participating. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:04, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Today the ceasefire was broken by 2 of our members, Andrews Palop and Captain Morgan. They proceeded to impersonate 2 Conservapedia admins, Aschlafly and Conservative. This action was NOT endorsed by the ILO, nor were any other members of the group consulted before this action took place. Palop and Morgan have both been reprimanded for this. However, other members of the group have shown dissatisfaction with the ceasefire and are urging that it be ended prematurely. Currently there are 4 days of the ceasefire left, however, this is under review. The only Conservapedia representative who has contacted us, DanH, has expressed that he has no intention of negotiating peace. If any other Conservapedians wish to speak with us, you can contact me on MSN at thesensitiveman@mail2germany.com or contact Andrews Palop at barryshambles@hotmail.co.uk. We will be waiting. [[User:A Whisper|A Whisper]] 16:21, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==YouTube for the Conservapedia Set==

Wasn't sure where to post this, but I thought you might be interested. Some conservative fellas felt that YouTube had a liberal bent, so they've created a conservative alternative: http://www.qubetv.tv/ --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 20:33, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks. The front page links to the ABC News story about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== main page ==

i just registered and i already see you are incompetent to run this site. the link from 'romney' on your main page goes to a breed of sheep. might want to fix that. [[User:JeepBeep|JeepBeep]] 21:42, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:What a coincidence; that article was only created today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:JeepBeep, sometimes I just can't seem to get my act together. I hope to learn from your edits here; maybe that will help.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::JeepBeep has been blocked for vandalizing the Mitt Romney article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:13, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==
should the [[Neo-Paganism]] article have links to websites that promote whitchcraft? I seem to recall a debate about linking to non-family friendly sites, so should these be deleted?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

: No, we shouldn't link to websites that promote witchcraft. Thanks if you can fix that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:58, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ivy League/Colonial Colleges chart==
Thanks for the kind words!
I think it is more managable in a vertical orientation; a 150-pixel width is reasonably legible, see [[Ivy League]]. 120 pixels might be OK, 100 pixels is definitely too small... Markup used in [[Ivy League]] is
<nowiki>[[Image:Earlycollegesvert.png|thumb|right|150px|Left: Ivy League; Right: the two Colonial Colleges that are not in the Ivy League.</ref>]]</nowiki>. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:25, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: That is awesome! This needs to go on the front page at some point! Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==YEC Views Popping Up Everywhere==
Andy, why is the Young Earth Creationist view allowed in the science articles and not the Old Earth Creationist views or other views? I am just wondering, there have been YEC views added to planet, star, astronomy ect. I can agree with the fact that YEC is a conservative POV but but it is not the only conservative view. I also have to point out that some of those articles listed are in need of major editing on their content and it looks like conservapedia has a YEC agenda when the YEC view is developed more than, say the definition of what a star is. So the questions I have are A. Why is this allowed? B. Does Conservapedia have a YEC agenda? Thanks in advance for the time to respond.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:28, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: No, Conservapedia does not have a specifically YEC agenda. But our [[rules]] do not allow the kind of speculation-as-fact claims that are found on Wikipedia and other sites concerning an old earth or evolution or any other predominantly liberal ideology. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:03, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Wait, is that to say that anything not YEC is inherently "liberal"? There's plenty of non-speculative material backing up OEC and TE views. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:45, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::Andy, if Conservapedia does not have a YEC agenda, then why are there YEC views attached to so many articles, while other views are struck down (see http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Geocentric_theory&diff=prev&oldid=145514 for a very conservative view of the Geocentric theory and how the page was reverted then locked)? A good example would be the universe and planet pages, does there really need to be a YEC view added to each of these pages? If so then what other views are allowed to have their own sections within articles? Basically what I am getting at is that some articles are so convoluted with POV that the nature of the topic is not given the space to accurately describe the topic. On the Astronomy page, 128 words for definition of astronomy, 374 words for the YEC view, 85 words for the YEC opposing views. The topic definition is only 22% of the article by word count, 64% is the YEC view and 14% the opposing view to YEC. How is this considered "educational, clean, and concise entries..." when the topic is not even a quarter of the whole article, but the remainder is just POV? I ask you is this concise and educational? How does this serve the students using the page?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree that some articles have an imbalance between describing the topic and explaining the competing views of origins, but the solution is to expand the description of the topic. I [[Talk:Dinosaur#Joke article?|encouraged]] an editor to do that very thing to the [[Dinosaur]] article a day or two ago. But it seems that many people prefer to complain about the YEC view than to expand the description.
:::As for whether a YEC view needs to be added to each page, if that topic has, or would be expected to have, a secular view attached, it is only fair that a YEC view be attached also. The point is that our worldviews, specifically our views of origins, affects a very broad range of subjects
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Not to butt in, but sometimes it seems when other viewpoints are added they are taken out as being "silly" ideas or claimed not to be properly cited. It can get frustrating trying to make legit edits and then told you're wrong without reason. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:08, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Philip is exactly right, and I think I said something similar on [[Talk:Astronomy]]. Let's beef up the astronomy initial description part ''without'' injecting claims about origins, so that it is a bigger percentage of the article. Then viewpoints of both sides can follow.

:: Keep in mind that Wikipedia censors YEC views and presents only one side of this. So Conservapedia has make sure that it remedies the Wikipedia censorship. Have you complained to Wikipedia yet about its biased treatment of these topics???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Andy to answer you question, I have. I believe that the wiki should stay objective.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I would agree with you Philip. Personally Astronomy could just be listed as to its function then left alone. I do not believe that secular views should be attached to topics that are cut and dry. I mean an article like "German Sheppard" should only describe the breed of the dog and behaviors. There does not need to be a debate on origins on an article that really does not need it. I can understand some of the hot topics like TOE page or ID page or YEC page even but this is getting a little out of hand when it the POV is being attached to everything. I must admit that I was waiting to see how long some POV would be added to the [[gene expression]] page I wrote. Consider that the information on the page is just observed fact and nothing else (A description of an observed process to clarify). The issue that I am addressing is that some of the articles are rendered useless due to the debating on the pages for POV stances. I am one of the editors that is trying to flesh out articles instead of adding to the mix but I have been locked out of pages because of someone's POV taking precedence, Macroevolution for example (I provided descriptions of what the majority of biologists associate with the concept, did not state it as fact nor did I push a POV, just listed the terminology, definitions and examples). I guess the other issue is based on if there is a YEC POV why not and OEC POV or some others? Would they be reverted and rejected?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::A few points of response:
::::* Very often evolutionists (etc.) fail to see the distinction between the facts and the theory, and inject their theory into articles thinking that they are the facts. So I'd suggest that the secular views are attached more often than you might recognise.
::::* I don't believe that it's reasonable, therefore, to limit the differing views to a very few articles like the ones you list. [[Jurassic]], for example, would appear quite odd without at least a mention of the dates assigned to it by uniformitarian scientists, and there would be ''many'' other articles for which this would be true. But once you mention the dates, you are including one of the views, so the other should be included as well.
::::* As far as Macroevolution is concerned, it was unfortunately hastily referred to the Panel, which means that it's effectively off-limits until they respond.
::::* There should be an OEC POV also, but in many cases the OEC view is the same as the YEC view (as far as the falsity of evolution is concerned) or the secular view (as far as dates are concerned). That is, it is to a fair extent an amalgam of the two.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Just to add, what about people who are conservative Hinduists? Should their POV be ignored since it is different from all of the listed above? This is why the POV issue is a problem. Jurassic is a timeframe defined by geologists not YEC's so one would assume this to be a geologist's reference. When I speak of polymorphism of chromosomes do I really need the POV of a shaman who does not believe in chromosomes to input his POV in the article? I would have issue with the statement that evolutionists fail to see the distinction between facts and theory, I only consider fact what I observed, not what I conclude. Any true scientist would assert the same.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::What POV do Hindus have that is different to evolutionists and has the support of scientists? The Jurassic timeframe is decided by ''uniformitarian'' geologists as distinct from YEC geologists, so assuming that it is "a geologist's reference" would be inaccurate. Perhaps ''you'' do only consider what is observed (perhaps I should check), but I've seen many examples of evolutionists failing to make the distinction, even though they would assert just what you assert. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reply concerning 2 Peter ==
Glad I could contribute. Btw, I wish you all the best in your teaching activities - I am sure it is difficult but very rewarding. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 09:46, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Mungo Man ==

<s>Andy, I pointed out in [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mungo_Man&diff=prev&oldid=144502 my edit comment] than ''nobody'' (as far as I'm aware) disputes the idea that [[Mungo Man]] is an essentially modern human. So why the need to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mungo_Man&diff=144506&oldid=144505 qualify it] with "claimed by its discoverers" and "described by its promoters"? And the citation for it being "fully human" is not to its discoverers anyway, but to the opposing group.

By the way, your addition about the other controversy over the fossil—which theory of human origins it supposedly supports—is something that I was already thinking should be in there. Even more could probably be said about that.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 5 May 2007 (EDT)</s>

I hadn't seen your post on the [[talk:Mungo Man|Mungo Man talk page]] when I posted this. I'll respond there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:19, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Pages ==

Andy

The main page says:

Let's all improve these top entries here:

United States

Jesus

World War I

World War II

Adolf Hitler

Holocaust

Columbine High School massacre

Global warming

Battle of Thermopylae

Canada

William Shakespeare

Abraham Lincoln

Vietnam War

China

How could we improve "Jesus" if it is protected???????

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 11:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: Pages are only protected out of necessity, typically to prevent repeated vandalism. There are people who don't like Jesus, and will vandalize that page. I will unprotect it for you now. But if it is reprotected, or if there is any other protected page that you would like to edit, then simply propose the edits on the corresponding talk page and they will be incorporated as appropriate once a Sysop is alerted to it. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:11, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Because my request for Sysop status went by under the radar... ==

I thought I would point out a few of the more significant edits I have made to this site: [[Golden Rule]] '''started''', [[Jimi Hendrix]], [[Torture]] '''fixed''', [[Terrorism]] (I have done scholarly work, taught and presented at a conference on this topic), [[Dred Scott]], [[Landmark Supreme Court Cases]], [[Downing Street Memo]], [[NAMBLA]] & [[Allen Ginsberg]], and [[Saddam Hussein]]. I am especially proud of the work on Nixon. It took me a little while to get in the swing of things here, being a liberal, but once I realized you weren't out to get people I decided to participate seriously and work toward keeping the site honest. As you review any of my edits I think you will find that I have done nothing to detract, ultimately from this site, and in fact have reverted several instances of vandalism. Thus, I would seriously like to considered for the position of Sysop so that I may continue to grow and learn with this site. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:50, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::I will be offline for a couple hours, so if I miss something, could you also post a decision on my talk page? Thanks!!! [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:07, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I hope Flippin becomes a sysop. I'll also point out, Andy, that my RFA has been posted for some time now [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#AmesG here], where I have garnered significant support, even from a few sysops. My contributions have been significant, too, and are listed on my user page, but encompass a good number of law articles. I hope you'll take my request seriously.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:33, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Nash equilibrium ==

I just finsihed an attempt at clarifying and structuring your [[Nash equilibrium]] article a bit (since you wrote "help welcome"). I agree that this is a non-trivial concept, so I invite you to look over it to determine if it's an improvement or if it should be reverted. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 17:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: Sorry, I just saw this. Your changes are excellent but it's not clear to me why you say the Nash equilibrium is sub-optimal for the [[prisoner's dilemma]]. I posted this comment on [[Talk:Nash equilibrium]], where we can continue this discussion. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for the compliment! And I left a reply about Nash/PD on the talk page. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 20:58, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== question ==

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

We were discussing some super good news in regards to Conservapedia (best news I have heard so far) and I had email tech issues. I think I solved the problem. I certainly don't expect rapid responses to my emails and just wanted to make sure you got my last email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggest featured article ==

The article [[Scotland]] should be featured on the main page. This article exposes the aggressive liberal implementation of the [[homosexual agenda]] in Scotland. Conservatives should know this. Especially those who are thinking of going on vacation there. They have a right to know what the taxes on their tourist dollars will be used for.
[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:28, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:The [[liberal]]s are busy introducing their [[deceit]]ful bias. The unadulterated version is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scotland&oldid=145571 here].
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== About Tmtoulouse ==

Hey Andy, Karajou blocked Tmtoulouse last night for "conspiracy to commit vandalism." When asked why, he said I had to take it up with you. Can I ask you why he was blocked? As exciting as it is to see ''Pinkerton'' rear its ugly head here, I think we should all know.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:49, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, the only reason that I haven't responded to this is because I don't want to waste time on it. Knowing the liberal style (which I'll put into my growing [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]] next), no matter how good my explanation is you will then complain, and complain again, and again, and again, so that the result is wasting my time. Sometimes I think that is the goal.

: I perceived a comment by Tmtoulouse early today to attempt to incite vandalism here: [[Talk:Universe]]. I was not the only one concerned about keeping his account open, either. Nor was that comment a surprise. Case closed, but I expect you to insist on having the last word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:29, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm terrified about what your little "essay" will say! Oh noes. But that was, err, a joke. Fairly obviously a joke. And that doesn't sound like the momentous revelation that would lead Karajou to say, "I'll tell you in a week." It sounds more like a pretextual reason. Don't we deserve the whole story?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*I think there comes a point, Ames, where ''no matter what one's past contributions have been'', their continued existence becomes nothing more than a distraction for the many at some point. Please try to keep that in mind, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== NICOLAS SARKOZY ==

SEGOLENE ROYAL CONCEDES DEFEAT TO NICOLAS SARKOZY IN FRENCH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION....CONSERVATIVES TAKE FRENCH PRESIDENCY! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: TK, you read my mind!!! I just put it on our front page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::He is live Fox News now, and is reconfirming France will have a closer relationship with the United States and proclaiming France will once again defend and protect freedom throughout the world! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Andy, don't you think that the prediction on the main page of a defeat of Hillary is a little premature, speculative, and, errr, ridiculous? Hillary hasn't been nominated yet, the election is a year and a half away, and France is (here's the kicker) a very different country than America, with vastly different problems and strengths. For one, it's much more liberal: Sarkozy is hardly an American conservative, and likely lines up closer with American liberals on everything but the war. I would call your Hillary pronouncement premature.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*I would call the response of ''some'' pedantic, didactic even. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*No kidding France is different from America. France is ''more'' liberal. Hillary Clinton will lose by an even bigger margin in America. In fact, don't be surprised if the Democrats decide they don't want her as the nominee, and look for a new candidate to step into the race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::You miss my point. I'm saying that they're incomparable, absolutely. And that Sarkozy is more liberal than you think. Do some research.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*''For them'', the French, he is Conservative, and that is enough for me. He is already at odds with the Germans and other members of the EU, and will possibly be aligned with the Italians, which is good news for the United States. From his public and private statements, the Islamofacists in France are indeed in for a tough time! Ames, you should be rejoicing at the change, rather than throwing cold water on it. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:30, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sarkozy will be good for France; the hard-line right-winger Muslim fanatics have gone too far... they rioted and destroyed Paris last year, remember? Sarkozy will put them in their place, they need a good wake-up call. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== newbie question ==

Can I assume I should refrain from displaying links on my User Page which would be deemed incompatible with this site's conservative stance? I'm interested in listing the URL for my somewhat eccentric blog to facilitate further interaction, but want to determine first whether this would be frowned upon. Thanks for any response. - muaddib987

: Generally, a person's user talk page here is his castle. You can politely disagree with us all you want there, as long as you don't break our [[rules]] against obscenity or don't encourage vandalism or any unlawful acts, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Let me be so bold as to add to the Owners post, and say that using one's page ''to attack'' other users, or CP isn't quite "Kosher" either. Polite disagreement, criticism is one thing, but to go out of your way to denigrate other's thoughts and opinions is a form of fascism, bullying, like what is allowed on Wikipedia. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== I can write essays too. ==

[[Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia|See?]] Mine even has loaded value-judgments, blanket statements, and no facts, too!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:05, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*You do know you are on probation, constantly, right Ames? Your lie about me, on that page, is typical Liberal assassination. Attacking other users, offering false witness and bullying by calling others out, not just Sysops, is a block-able offense. This is your very last warning. Pay attention. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:48, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
**I removed it. Good point.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:49, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Revisionism is a Liberal trait, and doesn't get you out from under on this. The fact that you dared to practice your "big lie" technique, and were caught, made you change it. Otherwise it would have remained in place as that same charge you made against me other places is still there. Please understand my utter sincerity in saying your next block will be the last one. Nothing personal, you understand. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::My reply is at [[Talk:Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia]]-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Silly image I posted... ==

...that you asked me about on my talk page, was used in a topic I just posted. {{unsigned|Essephreak}}

: First, your entry should be an essay since it is all opinion. Second, the image is of borderline value at best. I'll leave it but let's try to be more encyclopedic, OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:46, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Parole terms ==

Hi Andy,

Just a question: am I allowed to edit noncontroversial science articles, or is that a violation of my parole terms? In the event that it is, I request permission to do so. Thanks. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: That's fine, Linus, such as classical science topics like chemistry or physics. We welcome as much math as you can do. Thanks and God bless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. Also, can I redirect [[User:Hacker]] to [[User:Linus M.]]? TK has said I can't but I would like to know what you think. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:17, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: That redirect is fine. Thanks for asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Linus, you are technically in violation of your probation, seeking to modify our agreement here. You have taken advantage of Andy's not knowing the full details of our agreement. Shame on you. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::New here, but seems like a supremacy clause issue here. Site sheriff's word is binding law round herr.-[[User:FestinaLente|FestinaLente]] 23:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Obviously it's icewedge; the bad spelling gave it away. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:49, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: No time to learn how to spell when all his days and nights are devoted to vandalism!

:: I wonder what kind of job he can look forward to when he's too old to hang out at the public school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*One of their IP's traced to Turkey, the other to Ameritech here. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:10, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly

Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators

126,450

edits

Changes

User talk:Aschlafly/Archive20 (view source)

Revision as of 22:21, May 7, 2007