Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Community Portal"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Growing Conservapedia's conservative readership and editor base: needed for proposed page)
(Category:Nuclear Target Structures: response)
Line 846: Line 846:
===Category:Nuclear Target Structures===
===Category:Nuclear Target Structures===
Can someone please tell me how [[France]] - or the [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]] - belong in this category? Can someone please tell me what sense it make to wait for [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] to put every article with the slightest connection to nuclear power (or perhaps the letter "N") into this category? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 15 January 2015 (EST)
Can someone please tell me how [[France]] - or the [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]] - belong in this category? Can someone please tell me what sense it make to wait for [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] to put every article with the slightest connection to nuclear power (or perhaps the letter "N") into this category? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 15 January 2015 (EST)
:There are any objections to dropping this category?  Today, the main threats are to terrrorism targets rather than Soviet intercontinental missiles.  So, there is a danger that if we put undue emphasis on Cold War threats, home schooled high school students will over-react.  Categories are short hand and do not properly communicate the subtle dimensions for evaluating the "Nuclear Target Structures" designation. I do not object to a stand-alone article on this topic. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:11, 7 February 2015 (EST)
== Obama says the newspaper exercised bad judgment and brought this upon themselves. ==
== Obama says the newspaper exercised bad judgment and brought this upon themselves. ==

Revision as of 23:11, 7 February 2015

This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.

This page contains some material that has been moved from Talk:Main_Page. We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.


Restoring User Pages

I wonder if you [I was referring to User:Conservative in the original context] would be be so kind as to restore the following user and user-talk pages. Most of these people were long-time respected sysops and administrators, as I'm sure you, being a long-time respected sysop and administrator yourself, well know. Many of our important articles were written by these people. Current users may want to know something about the people that went before them and built Conservapedia. We should show some respect for our history and our founding fathers/mothers.

SamHB 23:33, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

Your suggestion is a reasonable one. I was not in favor of deleting user pages. But once deleted, I don't think it would be time well spent to restore the pages. Time moves on, and time could be better spent by improving substantive entries.--Andy Schlafly 00:37, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
I can see that all the active users are pretty busy, and are probably disinclined to do this. So how about letting me do it? I'm willing to restore those pages myself. You would have to give me the appropriate temporary rights, which might be "undelete" rights, or maybe full administrator rights, I don't know how this works.
I'm sure you know, from our many communications, both public and private, that I can be trusted not to harm Conservapedia in any way. During any period in which I have extra rights, I will refrain from annoying, harassing, irritating, teasing, insulting, or otherwise getting under the skin of any other user. I will not react to any taunts. I will not abuse the rights in any way. (Though if my rights include blocking, and I see any vandals come to town, I will of course take action.)
You didn't want the pages deleted? We can fix that. What say you? SamHB 12:48, 12 October 2014 (EDT)
There's an extremely troubling aspect to all this. You say you weren't in favor of deleting the pages, and yet, here, Cons says that the owner of the web site was in favor of the deletion. Was Cons lying? Also, here, Cons seems to indicate that he was in communication with you on the subject of giving JoeyJ deletion powers. These powers are not taken lightly. In fact, JoeyJ is the only non-admin who has them. So it looks as though you gave JoeyJ the deletion powers knowing full well that he would use those powers to delete user pages. What is going on? SamHB 00:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

God delusion

I finished reading the Prof. Dawkin's book. I have to admit that it has shaken my religious foundations... I sometimes wonder whether that has made me an Agnostic now. It has made me question a lot of my upbringing. I was a good catholic girl. I wonder what my mom will say --Maria O'Connor 12:44, 15 November 2014 (EST)

Richard Dawkins did not research or fact check his book very well and it has a number of errors in it as can be seen in this PDF version of The Irrational Atheist.
Second, how strong were your foundations before you read the book? How did you build your foundation?
In the physical life, if you are flabby, don't get enough sleep, etc., it provides an opportunity for disease to enter. The same is true in a person's spiritual life. How familiar are you with the classic defenses of the existence of God? How familiar are you with the various evidences for Christianity? See: Evidence for Christianity Did you ever repent of your sins and dedicate your life to following Jesus Christ? How often were you reading your Bible? How often were you praying? What are the most serious arguments against agnosticism? What are the most serious arguments against atheism. See: Rebuttals to atheist arguments.
Also, Jesus promises that those who repented of their sins and accept Jesus as their Savior and Lord will have communion with Him and will receive the Holy Spirit who will guide them. Did you ever know God or were you just engaging in religious rituals? Conservative 20:07, 16 November 2014 (EST)
Richard Dawkins has had his day, says Ravi Zacharias - Christianity Today, November 15, 2014 Conservative 04:04, 17 November 2014 (EST)
@Maria O'Connor: I'm really sorry that you have been abused so badly at Conservapedia. I want you to know that there are quite a number of decent and well-intentioned people here. You should ignore the abusers, and feel welcome to make contributions. We particularly need people who are knowledgeable in matters of science. If you can contribute in this area, dig in! SamHB 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)
Sam, you can contribute constructively to Conservapedia, or you can pick fights on the Main Page talk page. You cannot do both. VargasMilan 17:16, 21 November 2014 (EST)
Of course Sam can contribute constructively to Conservapedia whilst disagreeing with certain other editors. He's been doing it for years..... and more strength to his arm. There are not enough Sams these days. AlanE 19:36, 21 November 2014 (EST)

Subject Matter Experts

I recently had to deal with a case of someone making an edit to a chemistry article (with a note that he has a chemistry degree, which of course we can't verify, but it very well may be true) that was reverted. It's true that his use of "subjective" and "objective" could give the wrong impression to non-experts, and I have cleaned it up. But it just needed to be cleaned up. (The cleanup that someone did afterwards was ridiculous.) This person was blocked, apparently just because of that edit. This should not have happened. Quite a number of good contributors, and potential good contributors—we'll never know—have been reverted and blocked because the people with blocking powers did not know how to evaluate the edits. Now Conservapedia often has people come here and make stupid/parody/vandalism edits. But it is monitored constantly by the sysops. It is not necessary for people to be trigger-happy. Except of course for clear vandalism. I would suggest a page, probably in the Conservapedia namespace rather than "mainspace", listing subject matter experts who can make expert analyses of these things. The list should be publicized to all sysops. Contributors can volunteer as experts in various subjects. And sysops could hold off on reverting questionable edits until an expert opinion is rendered. SamHB 23:45, 28 November 2014 (EST)

Best Troll Detection of the Public
You have no proof that the person who was blocked was merely a Subject Matter Expert and not a troll as well. This ought to be dealt with by the Best Troll Detection of the Public. Trolling techniques include emphasizing words (when the logic of argument doesn't require it) to trample over anticipated reasonable opposition to one's argument with raw emotion as well as arguing about things on the Main Page talk page that don't appear on the Main Page. VargasMilan 10:55, 29 November 2014 (EST)

I can assure you that, in my 7 years here, I have developed a good sense for the kinds of vandals, trolls, parodists, sycophants, "mall cops", and other unsavory personalities that we have. I also notice other fascinating types of people, like those who complain about posting to this page not on the topic of improving the main page content while making quite a few such postings themselves (though, in fairness, they also make on-topic postings, which I rarely do), people who did not realize that they had been given blocking powers until I told them, and people who use spectacularly recondite sentences while attacking other contributors. You see, I've been around for a while.

On the matter of making posts to this page that are not directly on the topic of improving the content of the main page, I'm sure you know that, for several years, this page has been used for a discussion of CP in general, and that everyone, including Andy and the other admins, is OK with that. A more natural place for such discussion might have been a general discussion page such as Conservapedia:Desk, but, as you can see, it has rarely been used of late. There is actually a (an?) historical reason, from a few years back, for this. I won't bore everyone with the details, but you can email me if you are interested.

Regarding my "subject matter experts" comment above, I wasn't asking for people who are good at detecting trolls. We already have plenty of people (including myself) who are good at this, and plenty of people (including you) who are good at dealing with them. We probably already have the "Best Troll Detection of the Public". I was requesting "subject matter experts", which we don't really have very many of, or don't know who they are on various topics, and requesting that subject matter expertise be used in deciding whether to revert an edit.

In the case of the molar mass edit, I was well aware that this person might be a troll—his use of the recondite (there's that word again) terms "subjective" and "objective" in a description of quantitative chemical analysis was a bit suspicious—these are quasi-philosophical terms that might be considered provocative on a wiki like this. But he also knew what molar mass means. His change was a vast improvement over the "fuel quantity" phrase. The article just needed to have the "subjective" and "objective" words taken out, which I have done. The person did know his subject matter. There was no urgency in reverting his edit.

A suggestion, Vargas: Let's both try to be nice. You do good work when you're not talking about "withering patrician disdain". We can both do better than fight with each other.

Maybe I should have spent the day shopping instead of this :-) SamHB 00:02, 1 December 2014 (EST)

I will not disregard Andy's express instructions at the top of the page! VargasMilan 16:12, 2 December 2014 (EST)
Fair enough. I will try to abide by that policy also. SamHB 17:11, 6 December 2014 (EST)
I would be interested to hear what Andy thinks of the "subject matter expert" approach. Wikipedia generally hates experts and does everything to drive them away as editors. Many of the early CP articles were written by home-schooled students. We then had Ed Poor spending years curating a large number of articles. A few other editors undertook work in particular areaa of expertise such as AlanE and BHathorn. I suspect that Andy has his own lists of experts in the back of his mind, if not written down. The problem is that everyone believes that they are an expert while management may not agree with that assessment. So, we have to see whether this proposal is compatible with the "best of the public" concept. Thanks for raising it. Wschact 07:16, 7 December 2014 (EST)

Growing Conservapedia's conservative readership and editor base

Now that Conservapedia's Twitter link on the main page, two things:

1. We could organize our wiki editors to create/expand conservative articles in order to feature them on the Twitter feed.

2. Twitter is popular among conservatives. This book shows people how to attract 200 Twitter fans every single day: http://www.amazon.com/Twitter-Followers-Step---Step-guaranteed-ebook/dp/B00KEX694O/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1417623658&sr=8-3&keywords=twitter+marketing The book is only $1.00 and it should be easy to implement. If it was implemented, the Twitter account would go from 10,000 Twitter fans/followers to 83,000 fans/followers in one year.Conservative 11:30, 3 December 2014 (EST)

Has anyone considered taking out some modest ($50-$100) number of Facebook advertising? We could use it to drive traffic to the site and to recruit new editors. Thanks, Wschact 05:34, 15 December 2014 (EST)
Wschact, create a web page called Conservapedia: New editors wanted which I will feature on the main page. I can also talk to Andy about various ways to drive traffic to the page like online advertising, etc.
It will not be Facebook advertising because Andy dislikes Facebook. Of course, if you want to take out a Facebook advert to have it go to Conservapedia: New editors wanted, you could certainly do so.
Regardless, the main page will give the page Conservapedia: New editors wanted some traffic. Conservative 15:34, 15 December 2014 (EST)
Good idea. 1) Do we have photos of Andy sitting around a computer with a bunch of his students when they were working on editing CP? How about a screen capture of Andy being interviewed with Stephen Colbert? I believe that photos are a powerful way to deliver a message. 2) Do we have any facts that we can use to convey the importance of Conservapedia's mission? Thanks, Wschact 23:02, 7 February 2015 (EST)

Make the username policy more clear

Copied on over from Help talk:How To Create a Conservapedia Account

I think it should be made clear that the username must include your real name, as opposed to recommending your real name; perhaps there could be a help page on Conservapedia's username policy. A few users have been blocked for violating an otherwise nonexistent policy (and also advised to create an account with a real name even though their account creation is disabled for two years). A clear username policy would probably be beneficial for Conservapedia. -- DanielJackson 10:46, 6 December 2014 (EST)

Conservative's "Message Area"

I seem to be unable to edit it, despite wanting to discuss something with him. As such I put out a general request for a way to contact him or for him to unlock his message area. Hopefully I'm not missing something really obvious! Nhodgson 20:18, 6 December 2014 (EST)

You would do well to just ignore him. There's really nothing that you could discuss with him. He is notoriously secretive, seeming to believe that other people go along with his games, and he often locks his own talk page, and the talk pages of his "pet" articles. He seems to expect other people to go along with his fantasy that he might be multiple people. Just ignore him. SamHB 21:37, 6 December 2014 (EST)
If we could talk to him, we might tell him that his reversion of this on purely political grounds was ludicrous and shows a serious failure to observe what is going on. That edit was more than just a minor thing about whether Lincoln was a "classical liberal" or a "post New Deal progressive"—it was blatant and outrageous vandalism, about which most admins are very vigilant. The user ("TheonlySIL", whatever that means) should be blocked permanently. Perhaps some other admin will notice. SamHB 21:48, 6 December 2014 (EST)

Setting aside SamHB's axe to grind because I/we are pro-biblical creationism and anti-Darwinism/liberal Christianity, my/our talk page has just been unlocked.

By the way SamHB, what do you think about the data contained in this article: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity ? Can you refute it? It does not appear so! Conservative 13:00, 7 December 2014 (EST)

Haven't read it. But thanks for unlocking your talk page, Could you keep it that way, please? SamHB 23:52, 11 December 2014 (EST)
SamHB, may lock it again if I/we become extremely busy for an extended period or for other reasons which I/we prefer not to discuss. The talk pages of articles I/we created/contributed can certainly be used. Conservative 01:59, 12 December 2014 (EST)


There are two categories that are treating the same topic: Category:Best of Conservapedia and Category:Featured articles. How do they differ from each other and should they be merged?--JoeyJ 14:00, 12 December 2014 (EST)

My guess is that when authors of articles wanted to get extra views for their articles that they spent a lot of time on, they gave their articles these category labels. Conservative 15:52, 12 December 2014 (EST)
So should these categories be deleted?--JoeyJ 16:01, 12 December 2014 (EST)
While I have the greatest respect for Cons's diligence in spending a lot of time on her articles, and in getting them recognized (all her past SEO talk, for example), I notice that she does not put them into the the "best of CP" category. So I suspect that even she doesn't think the category is worth much. It does not seem to be noticed much. I just removed two obvious vanity/silliness things from it. Only three things remain. But their authors did put a lot of effort into them, and two of them are "flagship articles" by Andy. So I would consult with him on this. He probably wants a better way to promote the CBP and the Conservative words articles. In fact he has a better way: they are on the main page. So maybe you should ask him whether the "best of CP" category is worth keeping. SamHB 00:23, 13 December 2014 (EST)
SamHB, no true analyst would pretend to know the gender/genders of the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account. Solve the mystery of who/whom edited the Atheist actions against homosexuals article and you will earn the right to declare the gender/genders using the User: Conservative account to edit.
But it is a moot point anyways as the feminine Sarah Palin has more machismo than all liberal "Christians" combined!
By the way, have you read the Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity article yet? Conservative 22:15, 17 December 2014 (EST)
Nope. SamHB 00:58, 21 December 2014 (EST)

Purpose of this page

This page provides a forum for editors to discuss matters related to CP and its policies. Please do not use it as a sandbox for drafting article. You can create your own sandbox by making a subpage of your user page. Thanks, Wschact 09:43, 13 December 2014 (EST)

You're right. I was in a hurry before. Haste makes waste. :) Conservative 10:17, 13 December 2014 (EST)
There was no need to be hasty. You, of all people, must have known that it wouldn't be lost. Take a deep breath before editing.
Speaking of careless editing, I'm pleased that you correctly used "you're" above, though it took another edit, at 10:17 yesterday, to fix it. Haste makes waste. But your recent edit to the bottom of TAR's talk page has that mistake. You're in need of more care in editing. Take a deep breath (and get some sleep!) now and then. SamHB 11:31, 14 December 2014 (EST)
@TAR: I've taken out the rest of your stuff. You can move it to your talk page if you like. You can get it out of the page history, of course; nothing is ever lost unless an admin explicitly vapes it, which I don't think is going to happen. You do not need to worry about vandalism; it's easy to revert. SamHB 11:31, 14 December 2014 (EST)
@SamHB, thanks, I didn't know I could make a sandbox page beneath my username page that won't be indexed. I will do that from now on for articles I am working on. TheAmericanRedoubt 20:11, 14 December 2014 (EST)
There's a quick-and-easy trick to doing it, that I guess I ought to explain, though you might already know it. To create a new page subordinate to your user page, talk page, whatever, edit the user/talk page, and insert something like
[[User talk:TheAmericanRedoubt/sandbox99|My spiffy subpage]], and save it. When you look at it, it will be a redlink. Click on it, and you will get something like "this page doesn't exist. If you want to create it, enter the text below." Or something like that. Then paste in you new stuff. SamHB 20:25, 14 December 2014 (EST)

Deleting material from talk pages, or, even worse, deleting the page outright

Talk page material should not be deleted unless it is truly libelous or detrimental. Talk pages should be an ongoing journal of discussion of the corresponding project page. There is nothing wrong with a talk page being very short, and it is perfectly acceptable, albeit unusual, for an article page's author to say something on the talk page.

I recently had to re-create Talk:IP_camera to make a comment on the article.

SamHB 17:05, 15 December 2014 (EST)

Is there any way to recover the earlier material. Perhaps Andy or an admin could review the situation? Wschact 06:50, 18 December 2014 (EST)

Two millionth page view for the "Counterexamples to Relativity" page

The Counterexamples to Relativity has just gotten its two millionth hit. It is one of Conservapedia's best-known pages.

It seems that this page is very famous all over the internet. A Google search of Conservapedia+Relativity gets about 8000 hits. (Your mileage may vary; the test was done several months ago.) I didn't look at all of them, but I looked at the first 100, other than the CP article itself. Two were completely neutral and matter-of-fact, one was an item on ask.com that was a discussion of what "theory" means in a scientific sense, and was neutral. The other 97 were all derisive, mocking, contemptuous, and sarcastic.

Now I know that principled people are not deterred by popular opinion. But people might want to ask themselves whether the page has convinced anyone that Relativity is wrong. Or, more generally, whether it has accomplished anywhere near what its goals were. People might also want to ask themselves whether the counterexamples are objectively correct, and whether Relativity is objectively wrong. Now a lot of the discussion at CP has been about what people think about Relativity—for example, discussion of Laurence Tribe, and Barack Obama, and the folks that designed the GPS system, and the folks that operate that system, and so on. I'd like to get completely away from consideration of what people think about Relativity. Vox Populi and all that. I'd like to propose 3 questions about objective, observable facts, and ask the senior admins here to explain them without reference to people's opinions. These are matters of fact and incontrovertible observation.

  1. It is known that the perihelion of Mercury precesses, beyond Newtonian calculations, by an amount of about 43 arcseconds per (Earth) century. Without getting bogged down into quibbling over thousandths of an arcsecond, and just using the accepted figure of 43 arcseconds, why do you think this is so? Now there has been extensive discussion at Conservapedia over the possibility that the exponent in the "inverse square law" is not exactly 2. People have argued over whether or not that satisfies some principle of theoretical elegance, or makes integration easier, or whatever. I'm not interested in any of that. What I am interested in is that it doesn't work. That theory was proposed by Hall and Newcomb about 100 years ago, and quickly discarded, because it predicts a completely wrong precession for the Moon. So, why do you think this precession occurs? Do you have some theory of gravity that correctly predicts the precession of Mercury, other planets, the Moon, and Earth satellites?
  2. It is known that the received frequency of GPS satellite clock signals is about 0.44 parts per trillion faster than the frequency at which the signals were transmitted from the satellite. This discrepancy is well known, and there is circuitry in the satellites to compensate for it. Minuscule as this discrepancy is, compensating for it is essential to the correct operation of the system. Without getting into what people believed or were thinking about when the system was designed, or what people believe or think about when they upload correction parameters, why does this discrepancy exist?
  3. It is known that the mass of a Radium-226 atom (including the electrons--it makes no difference in the final outcome) is 226.025403 amu. When it undergoes alpha decay, it turns into an atom of Radon-222 (222.017571 amu) and an atom of Helium (4.002603 amu). This constitutes a loss of .005229 amu. Why is that? Is the law of conservation of mass not correct?

SamHB 00:18, 17 December 2014 (EST)

  1. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury disproves Relativity. People stopped reporting the discrepancy as technology provided greater precision; yet Relativists still insist that this proves their theory when the actual data disproves it. Newtonians are honest about the issue. Why can't liberal Relativists publicly admit that the data disproves their theory? Every scientist knows that if he questions or criticizes Relativity, then he disqualifies himself from ever winning a Nobel Prize (see, e.g., Robert Dicke), obtaining a doctorate, or receiving any research funding.
  2. There are a variety of possible explanations for the GPS discrepancy, starting with the obvious plausibility that the laws of physics are not invariant at every point in the universe. An honest, open-minded discussion of the issue would likely yield some valuable insights.
  3. There is nothing startling about an emission or loss of energy when something decays. It certainly does not prove Relativity.
Liberals make false statements about science all the time. Jimmy Carter became president by claiming that oil would run out in 35 years. There is nothing new about liberals misusing science to advance liberal goals.--Andy Schlafly 00:33, 17 December 2014 (EST)
"There is nothing startling about an emission or loss of energy when something decays. It certainly does not prove Relativity. " - So, you do accept the equivalence of mass and energy, as SamHB was talking about the loss of mass! That's good news... Or maybe, you want to rephrase your point #3. --AugustO 06:55, 21 December 2014 (EST)
It requires an enormous leap of faith, far more than is suggested by the Bible, to go from what I said to the silly, illogical E=mc2 equation.--Andy Schlafly 17:12, 21 December 2014 (EST)
Does it really? SamHB described a process where mass disappears - you answered that there is nothing startling about an emission or loss of energy. This gives the impression that you think of mass and energy as somewhat interchangeable. I know that you don't think so, that's why I asked for you to "rephrase your point #3". --AugustO 17:26, 21 December 2014 (EST)
When something decays to a lower energy state it can emit energy. That is not relativity, that is not E=mc2, and that is not "mass-energy equivalence."--Andy Schlafly 17:53, 21 December 2014 (EST)
Agreed - but you are talking about energy. The question is where is the mass of .005229 amu? (Take a look here...)--AugustO 17:56, 21 December 2014 (EST)
You rely on primitive technology used in an 82-year-old experiment. The technology is far better now, and the claim of mass-energy equivalence cannot be verified.--Andy Schlafly 19:51, 21 December 2014 (EST)

I had not intended for this to re-open the entire discussion, including the Cockcroft-Walton experiment. Aside from pointing out the 2 millionth view, the goal was to ask 3 very narrowly drawn questions. So narrowly drawn that they were not about relativity!. Not directly, anyway. They were about 3 observable phenomena, and the intent was to ask for explanations, relativity or otherwise, about them. For the second and third questions, Andy sort of did give explanations, though they were totally unsatisfactory by the standards of contemporary science.

I specifically asked for explanations that were indpependent of people's opinions, beliefs, or behavior. I guessed that Andy would either ignore the questions, or give off-topic answers. I got the latter. I got comments about relativity, honesty of "Newtonians", "relativists", liberalism, Nobel prizes, doctorates, research funding, Robert Dicke, Jimmy Carter, oil, and discrepancies with modern measuring technology. (Really? Are you saying that the anomalous precession does not occur? It's been observed since 1843. Are you saying that modern measurements show that the precession is zero, and that Leverrier was seeing something that isn't there?).

Let me restate the questions in their simplest possible form. Note that I am not asking about relativity.

  1. Anomalous precession. Why does it occur?
  2. Time dilation. Why does it occur?
  3. Non-conservation of mass. Why does it occur?

Andy did give a sort of explanation for the 2nd and 3rd of these: "The laws of physics are not invariant at every point" and "There is nothing startling [about this]".

Here is why those answers are completely unsatisfactory. Suppose that Johannes Kepler, when presented with Tycho Brahe's exhaustive data on planetary motion, including the puzzling retrograde motion of Mars, Jupier, and Saturn, had simply said "Well, I guess that, at some points in the Solar System, at some times, some planets go backward for a while." Or "There's nothing startling about this, Mars sometimes just goes backwards." He would simply be abandoning science to the capriciousness of nature. He didn't do that. He was a SCIENTIST. He looked for an explanation. He and Isaac Newton worked out a formulation that explained it. They didn't just say that the laws of nature are just something random at various places in the solar system, they came up with a physical law that was valid (relative to the measurements of the day) at all places and times in the Solar System.

The time dilation in the Earth's gravitational field is not just something random. It is known, and explained, with great precision. You can set your clock by it. (Literally!) To not be startled, or at least intrigued, by the time dilation, when time can be measured, and found not to dilate, between two points that are at the same altitude, shows a serious lack of scientific curiosity. Can you come up with a theory that explains this phenomenon quantitatively?

The same thing goes for the mass discrepancy. Conservation of mass had been known, with extreme precision, by 1900. Scientists were in fact startled and intrigued by its non-conservation. By the way, it can be measured with greater accuracy now than 82 years ago, and it still holds, or do you deny that it happens? Can you cite modern precise measurements that show that the discrepancy is zero? Can you come up with a theory that explains this phenomenon quantitatively?

SamHB 23:58, 21 December 2014 (EST)

I did specifically respond to your three points, and then days went by without a reply from you. Again, the anomalous precession disproves Relativity just as it conflicts with one model of Newtonian gravity in the solar system. Why is there an anomalous precession? The Newtonian model can be tweaked to explain it; Relativity cannot. An honest discussion by scientists of the data would advance the understanding, rather than scientists pretending that the precession proves Relativity (it doesn't).
Second, time dilation is not directly shown by anything, and certainly not by GPS. The slight variations can be explained by classical physics, or by recognizing that physical laws are probably not invariant across the universe.
Third, the evidence for non-conservation of mass is almost non-existent, with the leading experiment more than 80 years out of date. But I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved, and Newtonian physics does not depend on it. Quantum mechanics may have the potential -- if pursued with an open mind -- to shed light on this.--Andy Schlafly 00:16, 22 December 2014 (EST)
I'm not interested in what the anomalous precession proves or doesn't prove, or what scientists pretend that it proves or doesn't prove. I want to know why it occurs. The Newtonian model can be tweaked to explain it? Can you say what the tweak is? I hope it's not the Hall-Newcomb exponent tweak that was proved to be incorrect almost immediately after it was proposed. Do you have another tweak in mind?
Time dilation is most definitely shown, both by GPS, and by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959. This can be explained by classical physics? Really? Can you give us details? Can you give us a Johannes-Kepler-the-scientist type of explanation, that goes beyond the cop-out of saying that the laws of physics are simply different in different parts of the universe? "Different parts of the universe" is a far bigger chunk of real estate than is needed to show the effect. The Pound-Rebka experiment involved different parts of the same building, and GPS exhibits the discrepancy between different parts of medium Earth orbit. We should have a pretty good handle on how physics works in the vicinity of the Earth. Newton's law of gravitation worked over the whole solar system.
Evidence for non-conservation of mass is not "almost non-existent"; it is ubiquitous. The specific case of Radium alpha decay can be found on the periodic table charts hanging in high-school science classrooms. "I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved"—well at least you qualified it with "necessarily always", but can you be more specific? To a degree that Johannes-Kepler-the-scientist would respect? You are quite right in that Newtonian physics does not depend on it, but that's not what I was asking.
SamHB 00:38, 22 December 2014 (EST)
Andy: "You rely on primitive technology used in an 82-year-old experiment. The technology is far better now, and the claim of mass-energy equivalence cannot be verified." No, the experiment is routinely performed in courses on modern physics around the world, using modern technology. --AugustO 01:37, 22 December 2014 (EST)
On the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, tweaking the Newtonian model almost certainly can fit the data. Some objected to anything other than an exponent of precisely -2 for the force, because that muddies up the math, but that is a silly objection. The reality, however, is that anyone who pursues this approach is deemed an enemy of Relativity and won't get another research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize. Nothing but radio silence by the Relativity promoters about that obvious reality.--Andy Schlafly 18:01, 22 December 2014 (EST)
"On the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, tweaking the Newtonian model almost certainly can fit the data." That's just a canard - and you know it, Andy: yes, the exponent of Newton's law of gravity can be tweaked (or error terms added), but this results in a model which doesn't fit all the other planets. That's known since Simon Newcomb's days - and User:SamHB elaborated on this nearly five years ago! The first time you came up with this idea, you could have pretended to be ignorant on this subject. But you repeat it over and over again, without having done the calculations, or looking up why physicists discarded the idea a hundred years ago! That's worse than ignorance, that's willful ignorance.
--AugustO 08:36, 28 December 2014 (EST)

Let's not be too hasty with judgements about ignorance, willful or otherwise. Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this (and the other two phenomena). We're making good progress by drawing the questions very narrowly.

I believe that Andy has indeed read the relevant items, like this page from nearly five years ago, and this section, with its table of precessions of the planets. (I did not put in the phrase "fail to", by the way.)

So let's go over the situation again, extremely carefully. The bulk of the table was from me, though the all-important final column was added by User:Jloveday, using some experimental data that he dug up. I'm not in full agreement with the way he rounded the data, but the effect is clear. Even though getting good error bounds on the minuscule precession of planets beyond Mercury is very difficult, one can easily see, from the last few columns, that General Relativity tracks the observed precession very well, while the Newcomb-Hall tweak of 2.000000157 tracks it extremely poorly. Except for Mercury, of course, since the exponent was tweaked specifically for that planet.

So, Andy: What is the tweak to Newtonian mechanics that explains the precession for all the planets? And, while we're at it, can you give a satisfactory explanation for the other two phenomena, time dilation and mass non-conservation?

Andy also says: "Some objected to anything other than an exponent of precisely -2 for the force, because that muddies up the math, but that is a silly objection." I agree, it's silly. Though I am a little curious about who these "some" are. Can you cite something on the subject? Perhaps one of your physics textbooks?

Also: "The reality, however, is that anyone who pursues this approach is deemed an enemy of Relativity and won't get another research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize." As I said earlier, I'm not interested in the personalities; I just want to know why you think the precession occurs. (Actually, that's not true. I am deeply interested in the history of science and technology. But not right now. We can discuss that some other time.) So I'll make you an offer: If you get turned down for a research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize over this, I'll stick up for you. I'll cite the spirited debate you and I have been having over the last several years as evidence that you've thought deeply about these issues. Though I don't think I have much influence over funding agencies or Nobel committees.  :-)

SamHB 19:12, 29 December 2014 (EST)


I generally have a "live and let live" attitude towards the edits of others on CP, and don't want to criticize any particular editor. However, CP has experienced over time that editors come here from Wikipedia, where there are millions of articles and a very high number of Categories. Because CP is much smaller, we have opted for fewer categories, Over the past day, someone has created a bunch of new categories like Category:Conservative Authors. Category:Christian Authors, etc. Such narrow new categories will make a lot more work for everyone and may discourage editors from categorizing their articles. Perhaps Andy and management could please take a look? Thanks, Wschact 06:58, 18 December 2014 (EST)

The relevant provision of Conservapedia:Quick reference says: "Creating new "Categories" While this is sometimes needed, before undertaking larger projects that will have ramifications for many existing articles, please contact one of the Administrators on their talk page, and inform them of your idea."

To my liberal, sissy boy, atheist critics of guns in Texas!

Gentlemen, consider this picture of Amish women shooting rifles. When is the last time you heard of Amish women going on shooting rampages? :)

Amish women do not watch violent video games or watch television shows and/or movies with gratuitous violence! See Hollywood values. And unlike Muslims, the only beheadings Amish women read about is David beheading Goliath (and we know Goliath deserved it for defying the armies of the living God!).

Amish women are peaceful creationists and not violent evolutionists (see: Social effects of the theory of evolution and World War I and Darwinism and Evolutionary racism),

Amish women are loyal wives and are less likely to have their husbands go on jealous/violent rampages (see: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity). And Amish men have submissive wives and do not endlessly quarrel with stubborn, feminist wives! And irreligious men are more likely beat their wives/girlfriends than religious men (see: Irreligion and domestic violence).

Gentlemen, it is the dysfunctional liberals and liberal influence that causes much of the violence in Texas. No true conservative goes on a gun rampage! When is the last time you heard of a gun rampage occurring due to a student in a Bible believing Christian school? Never, my liberal, atheist friends? If only Texas wasn't creating so many jobs and a magnet to unemployed and undisciplined liberals fleeing their liberal welfare states!

And remember this, guns are an insurance policy for rogue states. Surely, you have read about such states (see: Atheism and Mass Murder and Evolution and Nazi Germany).

Gentlemen, I hope this clarifies matters. Conservative 14:47, 17 December 2014 (EST)

By the way, don't even think about saying that the Amish are pacifists and would not kill in self-defense.
Would an Amish man use violence to protect his wife? Did David eat the show bread?[1] :) Conservative 15:00, 17 December 2014 (EST)
Thank you for giving up your precious time to add these insights to the talk page, Conservative. The world would be a better place if more wives followed your example. JSamson 17:25, 17 December 2014 (EST)
No true skeptic pretends to know the gender/genders of the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account. Solve the mystery of who/whom edited the Atheist actions against homosexuals article and you will earn the right to declare the gender/genders using the User: Conservative account to edit.
But it is a moot point anyways as the feminine Sarah Palin has more machismo than all liberal atheists combined! Conservative 17:45, 17 December 2014 (EST)
I thought there was to be no further additions from the User: conservative account on the talk page? Perhaps one of the members did not get the memo? -JaysonK 13:51, 18 December 2014 (EST)
Buckling down on time management. Plan to post less on talk pages. Revised plans about talk pages. Will post on talk pages when it is related to article/wiki improvement. Conservative 18:54, 18 December 2014 (EST)


A project for active editors to collaborate on

Would you anyone like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.

The topic could be decided by the editors participating.

If you are interested, please leave comments below. I suggest picking a leader/leaders for the project or least assign people for various tasks associated with the project. Conservative 21:50, 25 December 2014 (EST)

I would be happy to help, but my time is limited.FOIA 22:06, 25 December 2014 (EST)
Merry Christmas Cons, and thanks for the thought. I think, however, that I would tend to become a "Devil's Advocate" in any collaboration I can envisage. The token liberal so to speak (and I say that with no malice.) I will need to know more. AlanE 22:21, 25 December 2014 (EST)
AlanE, it doesn't have to be a political project. It can be on a non-political topic. I will let whoever participates decide on the topic and whether or not it will be a political project.Conservative 22:44, 25 December 2014 (EST)
If AlanE and FOIA and anyone else who joins wants to decide on a topic tomorrow, the project can start right away. It can be announced on the main page also.Conservative 23:33, 25 December 2014 (EST)
I'd be happy to join in and help in any way I can. Merry Christmas. I have been and will mostly focus on the articles List of military tactics and List of military strategies and concepts. Long life the Republic! TheAmericanRedoubt 01:33, 26 December 2014 (EST)
Your invitation was an honor, and I thank you for your confidence. I will be happy to help. As soon as I finish my current "Bible" project, I will look more closely at what you have here and see what I can do. Semper Fi! --Dataclarifier 19:00, 26 December 2014 (EST)
Sounds great. Thanks for tackling the project. Conservative 06:16, 27 December 2014 (EST)

Ideas for potential articles


Less political:


Feel free to add article ideas Conservative 00:32, 26 December 2014 (EST)

Do we really have so few responsible editors .....

that obsessed individuals can materially change the tone and direction of Conservapedia with no one to apply the brakes.? Remember when this was supposed to be a resource for home-school students? A place where they could look up "vibration", for example, and get a concise definition of what it is, at their level, without going off into mystical medical cults? Remember when this was a good description of Conservapedia's vision and goals?

What happened? We now have just a tiny number of people turning the place into a survivalist blog, and an herbal medicine blog, or whatever, with hardly anyone to apply editorial direction. This wiki needs supervision.

SamHB 18:30, 2 January 2015 (EST)

Things like Category:Ayurvedic Medicine look very troubling indeed! --AugustO 01:58, 3 January 2015 (EST)
I agree with you there AugustO, I would say the content in those articles would be more at home on hippypedia or alternaticemedicinepedia than on conservapedia. Remember, conservatives like to have things backed up by facts, not nonsensical anecdotes that are the backbone of alternative medicine. PhilH 02:15, 3 January 2015 (EST)
Despite all the blurbs for Ayurvedic medicine in inappropriate places, Ayurvedic medicine itself remains a red link. PeterKa 17:57, 4 January 2015 (EST)

Response to User:SamHB, User:PhilH and User:AugustO Regarding Ayurvedic - Chinese - Western Herbal Medicine on Conservapedia

I am reposting-quoting here User:AugustO's post on User_talk:Aschlafly#Ayurvedic_medicine in order to see why I am making such a detailed point-by-point response.

"You know me as conservative on social or fiscal issues, but my conservatism reaches its zenith on medicine. I am very dedicated to Western medicine, and run away from "new age" or other fringe medicine approaches. Andy, you have to draw a line here on whether Conservapedia has the expertise and resources to cover Ayurvedic medicine properly. I doubt that we do and should stay away from it completely. Please decide and tell User:TheAmericanRedoubt you decision. Many thanks for all that you do for the Conservative movement. Wschact 21:42, 2 January 2015 (EST)

Category:Ayurvedic Medicine is like an advert for alternative medicine: it has 110 subcategories and is itself in 26 categories:
Category:Ayurvedic Medicine|Category:Tibetan Medicine|Category:Complementary Medicine|Category:Medicine|Category:Health Care|Category:Traditional Chinese Medicine|Category:Naturopathic Medicine|Category:Herbalism|Category:Medicinal Plants|Category:Herbs|Category:Spices|Category:Plants used in Traditional Chinese Medicine|Category:Plants used in Ayurvedic Medicine|Category:Plants used in Western Herbal Medicine|Category:Herbalists‎|Category:Health|Category:Survivalism|Category:India|Category:Tibet|Category:Nepal|Category:Mongolia|Category:Burma|Category:Thailand|Category:Sri Lanka|Category:Asia|Category:Southeast Asia|
That could be a kind of record! --AugustO 02:04, 3 January 2015 (EST)

Response to User:Wschact and User:AugustO Regarding Ayurvedic - Chinese - Western Herbal Medicine on Conservapedia

Happy New Year User:Aschlafly, User:Wschact, User:AugustO, User:Conservapedia, and User:Karajou

Thank you for your patience with this detailed point-by-point response.

Like you User:Wschact, I too am a steadfast conservative, but on much more than just social and fiscal issues, as my thousands of conservative point-of-view Conservapedia edits can attest to (Please see my User:TheAmericanRedoubt for more information). Also like you User:Wschact, I too am very dedicated to Western medicine and work together with a medical doctor with a busy private practice office in a large hospital setting where he and I integrate both modern pharmaceutical based treatment and the use of custom made Ayurvedic-Chinese-Western herbal formulas, nutrition (based on Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine concepts) and acupuncture. He supervises my practice in that setting. Like you User:Wschact, both he and I also run away from the myriad "new age" medicine approaches. However, Ayurvedic medicine, Chinese medicine - Acupuncture and Western herbal medicine are not "new age". Ayurveda and Chinese medicine - Acupuncture have been in continuous use since at least 250 B.C. according to archaeological evidence and extant classic medical texts in both Chinese characters, Tibetan and Sanskrit (which I can read by the way in Devanagari script).

Conservapedia does indeed have the expertise and resources to cover Ayurvedic medicine and Chinese medicine - acupuncture properly since I am contributing as a dedicated regular editor and have joined the Wikiproject:Medicine to lend my ongoing support editing/categorizing ALL articles in the realm of medicine / anatomy in addition to my other subject matter expertise areas on my User Page / Talk Page.

User:PhilH has said there is no clinical evidence to support complementary medicine. Not according to the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the National Institutes of Health who funds clinical trials on herbal medicines effectiveness, not according to medical doctors in America who integrate modern medicine with complementary medicine, not according to numerous conservatives who rely on complementary medicine including Western herbalism, Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda and Acupuncture. Just the fact that there is licensing for acupuncture in most of the U.S. states (majority of states require the licensing examination or certification, and several states allow oriental medicine practitioners to be "primary care providers" for legal and insurance purposes; nineteen states specifically include Chinese herbology instead of just acupuncture). For naturopathic medicine 17 states, five Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia, and the US territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands all have laws regulating naturopathic doctors (See map http://aanmc.org/images/LicensureMapBig.jpg -- even very conservative states such as my home state of Idaho in the American Redoubt, along with Montana and Utah license naturopathy).

All of this attests to complementary medicine's broader acceptance, not to mention the size of the herbal market in the U.S. economy: For herbal medicine "overall sales reached $5.6 billion in 2012" "rising from $4.2 billion in 2000" (http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Markets/Herbal-supplement-sales-rose-5.5-in-US-in-2012-ABC-says)

There are many conservatives blogs and forums that I follow that have regular articles on complementary medicine and herb usage. Complementary/alternative medicine is not some liberal, hippie or New Age thing. It is even paid for by many insurance companies now. There is worker's comp coverage for it in certain U.S. states.

Regarding evidence in my articles, I will indeed be submitting footnoted hyperlinked clinical evidence from MedLine / PubMed.

Regarding the Category:Ayurvedic Medicine having lots of sub-categories: There are many sub-categories in the Ayurvedic medicine category since it is a broad science including many diverse health and disease topics and since I am a very detail oriented person as you can see with my contributions for the firearms categorizations (which formerly were all lumped into just the Category of "Guns"). I am using that Category:Ayurvedic Medicine and its temporarily numerous subcategories as a way of temporarily getting a broad view and tracking ability of ALL of the medicine-anatomy categories and articles in order to update them all over the coming months. I promise that I will pare that category down in the next 60 days to something smaller once I have updated-edited-expanded ALL of the medicine/anatomy related articles to follow a consistent yet detailed categorization scheme. I always start first with detailed Wiki categories in order to flesh out the scope-breadth-depth and a logical structure for the articles I will submit. I am doing the same detailed categorization for Firearms and other areas.

User:Conservative has been "mentoring" me as to what I should and shouldn't post. I have been following this for guidance as well: Conservapedia:Editorial_authority. I also received advice from User:Karajou on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 23:15:17 by e-mail (conservapedia AT zoho.com) who said, "Try your hand at writing complete articles. Conservapedia is not just something containing conservative thought; it is also intended to be a family encyclopedia, so it has to have info on planes, trains, automobiles, animals, sports teams, camera systems, or whatever else comes to mind. So, if you happen to be an expert on - say, rowboats - write an article on rowboats. Karajou".

Thus, following Karajou's advice above and oversight from User:Conservative, I am writing "whatever comes to mind" on what I "happen to be an expert on". Thus, I have be developing a lot of detailed articles and their categorizations for my 6 areas of specialization (in order of my depth of subject matter expertise): 1. Medicine, 2. Computer networks (17 years professional experience), 3. Preparedness-Survivalism, 4. Firearms, 5. Permaculture gardening, 6. Radio communication technologies - Amateur radio. Being a staunch American conservative libertarian "prepper" "gun nut", I obviously write/edit from that perspective.

For these and many other reasons, I don't see a reason for Conservapedia to stay away from complementary medicine completely as you suggest User:Wschact. Thus, I will continue to contribute such works to Conservapedia until I am told to stop by any of the CP Administrators such as User:Aschlafly, User:Conservative, or user User:Karajou.

Thank you to you all for your work for our Conservative movement. Godspeed. TheAmericanRedoubt 06:57, 3 January 2015 (EST)

"Troll" Editing by User:SamHB of Numerous articles I am Working on / Editing / Contributing

User:SamHB, First you accuse me of plagiarizing, then you delete my citation correcting your speedy deletion template notice. Are you "Trolling" perhaps ("users who purposely make disruptive edits are considered trolls") like your friends User:PhilH and this other friend of yours who made the comment on Talk:Free_state?

User:SamHB, Please follow these Guidelines rather than making disruptive edits to further your agenda: Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule

User:SamHB, Looking at your contribution here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SamHB

User:SamHB, I see that the last time you actually contributed any kind new article other than a Talk Page was here 2 years and 6 months ago: 18:54, 1 June 2013 (diff | hist) New! Propositional Calculus ‎ (A start. Ed, it's time for you to step up to the plate (See? I do know a few metaphores, though I'm not a TopDog!) and fill out this article.)

Looking at your contribution logs, a large amount of your recent edits in the last 30 days have been reverting my edits.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tinospora_cordifolia&action=history: 08:11, 4 January 2015 SamHB (Talk | contribs | block) (7,439 bytes) (Do not "spam" links to extrenal commercial websites. People are routinely banned for that.) (undo)

17:07, 2 January 2015 SamHB (Talk | contribs | block) (6,798 bytes) (If you really think blatantly plagiarized material should stay, please post a note to the community portal explaining this.) (undo)

User:SamHB, It seems you are not listening to my previous Talk page on these articles. This is the second time I am telling you this. Please kindly listen this time and stop troll editing.

User:SamHB, these links you deleted are 'not' Spam links to external sites. It is a temporary citation for a quote I made to start the rough draft of the article -- the "ref" is to a respected and authoritative source of information on this herb; just as IBM would be an authoritative and respected cite regarding IBM Mainframe computers. Once I type in quotes and/or paraphrase summaries from some of my numerous Ayurvedic herb books listed here Tinospora_cordifolia#External_Links, I will cite them as well to flesh out the article.

Formerly you were here on this very article Tinospora cordifolia accusing me of plagiarizing by not citing my 1 paragraph quote and nominated the article for deletion. Again, SamHB, please respect as I said before on my user talk page (perhaps you can read it) that I will be completing these articles in the next five days and let me do the editing on my article that I started, otherwise it slows me down to have to constantly go back and check the history of the pager to see if someone is "helping out".

While you can perhaps please consider contributing some new actual articles of your own in your own area of expertise such as math rather than editing one I am in the middle of working on. Thank you for your understanding. TheAmericanRedoubt 10:41, 4 January 2015 (EST)

This Site is Being Hijacked

There is no more pleasant way to put that.

This is a continuation of what I wrote above about "Do we really have so few responsible editors". The problem is extremely serious. Ultimately, it is about there being so few people who are responsible, level-headed, and able to put reasonable amounts of time into this, that one person can overwhelm everyone and turn Conservapedia into something far removed from its original goal. The original goal, in case people have forgotten, was a site that home-school students (and others, of course) can use as a general reference source, on a wide variety of topics, without bias from the liberals elsewhere on the Internet.

But User:TheAmericanRedoubt is single-handedly steering the site into a very different and troubling direction. Multiple directions, actually. How is he able to do this? Because his editing is fanatical, intense, and obsessive, and there aren't enough level-headed editors around who have the time and energy to put the brakes on.

He is turning this into a blog on survivalism, one very particular "Vata/Dosha/Ayurvedic" type of nontraditional medicine, and many other things. There is nothing wrong with articles on these topics, but he is overwhelming Conservapedia with his obsessive editing.

He has put dozens and dozens of references to his views on survivalism into a huge number of articles for which such references are totally inappropriate. He seems to think that we should all drop out of society, cash in everything we have into "tangibles" (bullets, beans, batteries, whatever) and move to "redoubt states" like Idaho to spend the rest of our days behind some barricades doing .... I don't know.

His steering of CP into his chosen direction is made all the worse by his fanatical cross-referencing and categorizing. This has put his writings "in your face" when people go to normal topics. For example:

  • vibration used to be a short article explaining what wibration is—a rapid periodic undulating motion. TAR put it into the "VATA" category. When one looks around in same, one finds some new-age touchy-feely nonsense about psychological perceptions of vibration. He polluted Fashion industry values in the same way.
Dear SamHB, I will be adding some explanation to Fashion industry values and to my vata article to show that according to Ayurvedic medicine, patients who are "vata" disturbed or of a vata constitution have a very strong documented tendency to be part of much of the Fashion industry values, particularly anorexia nervosa, serious drug abuse, extreme promiscuity, unfettered cosmetic surgery, severe depression along with an obsession for fashion.

One of my family members is a psychologist of 24 years who also knows Ayurveda and who has seen fashion industry values addictions among countless "vata" disturbed patients, but not among pitta or kapha patients who are more stable and not usually addicted to these same things. Sam, I shall be showing vibration to show a similar connection to the Category:Vata both in Ayurveda, Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine. Perhaps SamHB it is best you stick with writing new useful articles on mathematics and calculus.

Perhaps Sam you may want to considering following the wise advice of conservative User:VargasMilan: "Withholding judgment for now is good".
Please be patient while I work on expanding articles and writing new content. Thank you. TheAmericanRedoubt 06:49, 5 January 2015 (EST)
Sam, in due time I shall expand these articles as well to show my reasoning. But for now I will follow my favorite CP Rule (Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule) and get back to work writing new content and will follow VargasMilan's advice below and try to not urgently "feel pressured to complete all the red links and for-now-obscure connections" "just because some people don't like" me "trying to be an effective voice for conservatism, and so they unfairly single" me "out." TheAmericanRedoubt 07:26, 5 January 2015 (EST)
Dear SamHB, I corrected my accidental cut and paste of the Category:Survivalism on Ruthenium done when I first created the Category:Precious Metals (

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Precious_Metals&action=history) on Dec. 4. Thanks for catching them SamB.

I expanded the one sentence stub for transformer to include more content and formatting including its reason for being part of Category:Survivalism.
Regarding the article Wire - was an article on expanded to include the electrical connector (it primary sense), since it formerly only described some Rock band Album (see


SamB, I think I will get back to making constructive edits and creating new content rather than hanging out on Talk pages. Good day. TheAmericanRedoubt 06:34, 5 January 2015 (EST)
  • He has written extensively about amateur radio, which, as an extra-class licensed ham, I think is fine. But the implication is that hams are just supposed to do this so they can communicate with each other "off the grid" in their "redoubts". I can assure everyone that the vast majority of hams (even those in call sign area 7) are fully engaged in society. We take emergency preparedness very seriously, of course, and have a big annual contest on this topic every year, but this is always done in cooperation with existing local, state, and federal emergency organizations. We have sub-organizations (ARES and RACES) dealing with this. We are very much on the grid and in society, and I object to the implication that we are not.
  • His IP camera article, to pick just one of dozens of examples, links to Survivalist retreat. This is absurd.

In addition to his fanatical edits to Conservapedia articles that, by themselves, materially alter this site's direction, this huge web of interconnected categories and "see also"s makes it impossible for readers to escape his actions. This is significantly worse than what User:Conservative has been doing because, in the latter case, one simply needs to ignore any article with "hot button" phrases like "obesity", "evolutionism", "creationism", "atheism", "ponies", "walrus slides", and "long-haired creationist ladies". It's much much harder to escape from User:TheAmericanRedoubt's behavior.

I urge the administrators to put a stop to this. The rest of us simply can't do it.

SamHB 15:08, 4 January 2015 (EST)

SamHB, I did a Google search of instances of the phrase "long-haired" on Conservapedia and none of the instances were done by the User: Conservative account. Are you jealous because you suspect that an editor of the User: Conservative account has a long-haired maiden as a sweetheart and you do not? :)
Try Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/120#please_make_a_cost.2Fbenefit_analysis_in_terms_of_human_welfare. It has "long haired, sweet and gentle Christian lady wife", no hyphen. Sorry. Anyway, I'm glad that at least one of you (male, I hope!) has "a long-haired maiden as a sweetheart". SamHB 16:53, 4 January 2015 (EST)
Second, the odds of you being listened to by Aschlafly in terms of suggestions/complaints, etc. would go dramatically up if you created more content. Right now, I think the odds are pretty much zero given your level of content creation. Conservative 15:21, 4 January 2015 (EST)
I agree that the odds are nearly zero, but not for the reason you give. My history as a constructive contributor of long standing is well known to Andy. But thanks for your words of encouragement. SamHB 16:53, 4 January 2015 (EST)
Quote Right now, I think the odds are pretty much zero given your level of content creation. Doesn't mean SamHB is not right though. The edits from the redoubt are so obviously either parody or highly biased POV pushing that it is difficult to argue otherwise. Woo is not encyclopedic, no matter who peddles the woo. Now I leave both redoubt and the collective known as User:Conservative to indulge in last wordism. Davidspencer 15:35, 4 January 2015 (EST)
Oh, and if the collective editors of the User:conservative account have a long haired maiden as a sweetheart then I would question how multiple people having the same sweetheart is in any way Christian? Seems more liberal hippy type behaviour to me. Davidspencer 15:37, 4 January 2015 (EST)
DavidSpenceer, you may believe that deceitful accusations based on altering the meaning of other people's words is clever. It is not. And it makes the accuser look bad. Conservative 16:15, 4 January 2015 (EST)
That is not what I was doing and you know it. Luke 4:23 Now, as I said I will leave you and redoubt to indulge in last wordism at this point.Davidspencer 16:17, 4 January 2015 (EST)

DavidSpencer, I think posting long screeds to a person who is known to preferring brevity and doing it in a context that has an effective success rate is zero is irrational. But hey, that's just me! :) Conservative 16:37, 4 January 2015 (EST)

Is there a specific objection to a specific edit? I looked at transformer, for example, and did not see anything objectionable about it.--Andy Schlafly 20:46, 4 January 2015 (EST)

I believe the objection was to the addition of the Survivalism category. If transformers are important to Survivalism, then it would be difficult to name a practical object that doesn't deserve inclusion in that category. AlexanderS 00:09, 5 January 2015 (EST)
I updated the transformer article to reflect why I included it in the Category:Survivalism. Thank you for pointing it out. TheAmericanRedoubt 01:54, 5 January 2015 (EST)
Thanks AlexanderS for your observations. Each item I put in the Category:Survivalism will have expanded, footnoted content added to the article to justify its inclusion in this broad Survivalism category. For now, please be patient with it. Unless Andy Schlafly objects to the content. I will be, in due time, reasonably justifying it with actual expanded content that respects copyright. Please see: Talk:Fair_use#Authorization_by_NYT_Best-Selling_Conservative_Christian_Preparedness_Author_James_Wesley_Rawles_to_use_.22up_to_3_Quotes_of_800_Words_Each.22_of_his_Writings_per_CP_Article. TheAmericanRedoubt 07:26, 5 January 2015 (EST)
SamHB and AlexanderS are worried that there are 404 articles and 125 subcategories in Category:Survivalism now. Wschact 09:35, 5 January 2015 (EST)

I am sure that SamHB has a better list, but you can review the user TAR contrib log for yourself:

A. Categories on Redirect Pages (he has promised to stop, but has not fixed):

B. Excessive See Alsos:

C. Copy and Paste:

D. Odd new categories:

  • Category:Breathing - now 5 martial arts articles have been added but the see also and subcategories don't match the martial arts.
  • Category:Respiratory System - a bit of back and forth between TAR and SamHB - the 12 articles in this category don't match the ideas added by TAR.

E. Adding novel categories to long-standing articles:

F. Sloppy linking:

G. Unilaterally modifying our legal disclaimer framework

I have modified my rough draft Template:Medical Notice to be more generic. I have now linked the template clearly to the official CP legal disclaimer (Conservapedia:General_disclaimer). Please feel free to edit the template. But I do think we need a specific medical disclaimer template like the rough draft one I created. This is why I attached it to my several rough drafts he astutely cited above. Please see Template_talk:Medical_Notice TheAmericanRedoubt 07:56, 5 January 2015 (EST)
With utmost respect, {{Medical Notice}} should not be put into article space as a "rough draft". Create a page at User:TheAmericanRedoubt/Medical Notice for the rough draft and then invite other people to edit it with you. Once there is agreement and editors who are lawyers have had a chance to review it, then we will have the go ahead to add {{Medical Notice}} into articles. Also, interweaving this discussion in the middle of my earlier posting msy confuse other readers. Thanks, Wschact 09:30, 5 January 2015 (EST)

I don't want to come across as negative, but there have been a lot of edits from TAR without people taking the time to train him properly. We need you to set the standard so that the end product will meet our consensus expectations. Many thanks! Wschact 01:05, 5 January 2015 (EST)

Please see my response to TAR's questions about categories here.

Withholding judgment for now is good

The American Redoubt's proving the relevance of Transformer to survivalism as we speak. I don't agree with every cross-reference he added, but I don't want him to feel pressured to complete all the red links and for-now-obscure connections he made immediately just because some people don't like him trying to be an effective voice for conservatism, and so they unfairly single him out. VargasMilan 01:55, 5 January 2015 (EST)

Thank you VargasMilan for your kind and inspiring words amidst the loud noise and shock coming from the transformer. :) I will follow your advice and focus on the Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule TheAmericanRedoubt 07:56, 5 January 2015 (EST)
I think that if you read User talk:TAR, you will see that everyone is trying to be respectful and constructive. I have also left my comments on the recent Transformer edits here. (His additions go to the question of grid reliability, not the question of whether someone should go off the grid.) The problem is that CP has a traditional view of conservatism. We need Andy to tell us where to go on non-Western medicine and survivalism. In general, I know a lot about law and social order and the electric industry. I am not an expert in living as a mountain man in a post-civilization world. I am not an expert in non-Western medicine. So, if we go in those new avenues, I would step back from the project. Thanks, Wschact 02:32, 5 January 2015 (EST)
Each time you commented about The American Redoubt's present shortcomings in completeness, you reproduced the section title "This Site Is Being Hijacked" in the edit summary. For someone who claims to know so much about transformers, you didn't seem to realize that you could have been administering to The American Redoubt quite a shock! VargasMilan 02:47, 5 January 2015 (EST)
I did not name that discussion heading, but that is where Andy asked for specific links. Please look at the user talk page. I believe we must be positive and encouraging to new editors, but we have asked Andy for guidance for five days now. This is like Humpty Dumpty - each hour of indecision creates more and more clean up work. Everyone involved has been very polite, but TAR is pressing ahead full steam rather than consulting and soliciting feedback in an incremental, consensus building way. It is too bad that the Style Manual is protected. Otherwise, I would add further guidance about "see also" lists and categories. Many people come here after using Wikipedia, so they understand the concepts, but TAR is going off in his own direction. Similarly, the Style Manual needs to be clarified on what content should go on a category page and that categories should not be assigned to a redirect page. Thanks! Wschact 03:19, 5 January 2015 (EST)

The Manual of style page is now unprotected. After reasonable changes have been made to Manual of Style (which are not overly restrictive), ask an Admin to protect the page again. Conservative 04:31, 5 January 2015 (EST)

I'm done. Please look it over and protect. Many thanks. Wschact 10:04, 5 January 2015 (EST)
The edits looked practical. I protected the article again. Conservative 11:24, 5 January 2015 (EST)
Looks great User:Wschact. Thanks for putting it in writing for newer editors who don't know the unwritten policies of the past. I will do my best to follow it. See my responses to your appreciated and polite mentoring over at Category_talk:Exercise. It's great Wschact that you are pleasantly civil and don't use words like "Rubbish!" and "Hideous!" as you delete my edits without even a Talk Page comment like a certain Expat American from the liberal bastion of Massachusetts. :-) TheAmericanRedoubt
People are telegraphic and brief in edit summaries. SamHB and others all want CP to be a good resource, and for editors to work well together. The problem is that some people amp up their word choice when they feel that they are being ignored. You cannot finish CP in one day, so don't feel as if we are putting pressure on you. Just focus on one or two things at a time and give people an idea of where you are trying to go. Thanks, Wschact 17:02, 5 January 2015 (EST)
The abolitionist Harriet Tubman declared: "I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if they only knew they were slaves." If only SamHB would be open-minded enough to recognize the truth of TheAmericanRedoubt's essay on unfree states. Then he could escape the taxation scourge and big government scourge of Massachusetts that are robbing him of his economic freedom and other liberties! Conservative 17:41, 5 January 2015 (EST)

Wschact, your "mountain man"/"outside my expertise"/"I'll have to step away from the project" comment is not conducive to building an encyclopedia.

Encyclopedias are broad based reference works. They don't solely cover urban living for example and can cover such topics as eskimos, Middle Eastern and African nomadic life, Australian aboriginal life, anarchy in Somalia, etc. If we wanted a project which solely covered your expertise such as law and social order in first world countries or the electric industry, it would stop being an encyclopedia.

If someone wants to create a wiki called UrbanWhiteLiberalElitePedia.org, I have no problem with that, but it will not be a very encyclopedic work. Conservative 17:31, 12 January 2015 (EST)

On January 12, Conservative left a message on my talk page about a sentence that I posted above on 02:32, 5 January 2015 (EST). Basically, I argue that being a Conservative means working within society to build a social structure that promotes individual freedom and liberty while using government in a prudent fashion when necessary. I feel that certain extreme people are trying to scare prospective followers into leaving society now to live alone in a lightly populated area outside of the fabric of society. (This is a separate question from being prepared should society fail due to some crisis or catastrophe.) A conservative perspective should help us learn how to live together with wisdom, rather than endorse a viewpoint that assumes that society will fall apart completely very soon. So, I enthusiastically endorse covering all human knowledge including mountains, eskimo culture, and even guns. However, under Conservapedia Commandment #5, those article should be written without bias, including bias that advocates that people should leave society now to anticipate the imminent collapse of American society. I am sorry if my remarks were not clear. I know we both believe in Conservapedia Commandment #5 and don't see any difference in our policy objective. I am putting my energy into building a better encyclopedia within a constantly improving American society, rather than advocating a withdrawal from society based on the assumption that American society will fail soon. Wschact 21:36, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Did the 1929 Great Depression in the USA happen unexpectedly to many people? Did many people experience great hardship during the Great Depression? Has the US government, which is 13 trillion dollars in debt and engaged in a lot of money printing, nullified the business cycle and immune from the laws of economics? Are there reputable economists who believe that very seriously harmful, black swan events can still happen to modern economies?[3][4] Did liberal economist community predict the 2007 economic crisis or did the conservative Austrian school of economics much better predict it?[5][6] Which liberal economics department at a major university predicted the 2007 economic downturn and made a public announcement beforehand? Is the correct answer none of them did? Are many Austrian economists predicting an extremely serious economic downturn? Are there respected financial analysts (often from the Austrian school) with strong track records predicting an extremely serious US economic downturn?[7]
Does Conservapedia have a worldwide audience? Is English fluency common in the world? Are most Christian conservatives outside the Western World (see: Global Christianity)? Are conditions often difficult in developing countries where many Christian conservatives live and would survival skills be useful to these people?
Are you saying that the devout Christians who witnessed the fall of the Roman Empire were not Christian conservatives? Are you saying that the devout Christians who witnessed the fall of the Soviet Union and experienced significant hardship were not Christian conservatives (when the fall of the Soviet Union occurred some people could not get their insulin, etc. etc.)?
Would the people of New Orleans who experienced Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath have been better of if they had some survival skills or were they better off relying on big government? Were the 13 people of the 2014 NY State blizzard who were stranded on the NY State thruway who died better off relying on the liberal Cuomo administration's judgment on when the thruways should be kept open and not shut down for safety reasons or would they have been better off having some survival skills and preparation (weather radio, arctic sleeping bad in their car trunk, etc. etc.)?
Could survival skills have been helpful to the people who died in the Ferguson riots?
If one person read about some survival skills from a Conservapedia article and saved their life as a result, would it have been worth it? :)
There is more in heaven and earth, Wschact, than is dreamt of in your liberal, urbanite/suburban philosophy. :)
"Be prepared." - USA Boy Scout Motto
"But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come." - The Apostle Paul
The 4 Gs: God, gold, guns and a getaway plan! Conservative 23:17, 12 January 2015 (EST)
will the users of the conservative account continue to not use the show preview button? Will Karajou and Andy continue to ignore user requests with comment? Will the users of the conservative account continue to berate other users for having multiple people using one account? Will the users of the conservative account continue to pretend that Karajou and Andy actually speak to them? -RalphWi 00:14, 13 January 2015 (EST)
The users of the User: Conservative have never pesterfested anyone at CP! A user of the User: Conservative account got RobSmith banned for pesterfesting among other sins. If he hadn't pesterfested, he might still be an Admin.
Will the liberal, urbanite/suburban, pesterfester Wsachat be next to get the axe or will he take the hint and stop pesterfesting TheAmericanRedoubt? A user of the User: Conservative account knows that some of Wschat's pesterfesting is ideologically driven and uncalled for. In addition, his liberalism and ignorance of history/economics driven disdain for TheAmericanRedoubt (which inspired his "mountain man" cultural/economics myopia) caused him to have a less than a cooperative spirit. This must change and will not be tolerated. Conservative 00:32, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Quality over speed

I realize that TheAmericanRedoubt has a lot of energy and wants to add a lot of material to Conservapedia. However, we value quality over speed. For example, today we have a brand new article CETME‎. It appeared nine minutes after TAR's edit to a different article. If I understand correctly, this article is a 45 word cut and paste from the "Survivor Blog" (according to footnote 1). The article then has a See also section and Further reading section to two of James Wesley Rawles books. The new article gives the overall impression that if you want to know about a Spanish manufacturer of army rifles, Rawles is the expert. I find that difficult to believe.

Dear User:Wschact, you may find that hard to believe, because you haven't read those books. I have read at least 15 minutes per day of his SurvivalBlog articles daily for about 6 years. That's more than 500 hours more of reading of just his Survival Blog which contains a LOT of firearms articles. I read/listen to about 1.5 hours a day from about 5 other firearms and survival blogs/podcasts. I can safely say that he, Jack Spirko and Boston T. Party are indeed respected firearms people. Have you read those two books? I have, several times for the 2009 one. Mr. Rawles is indeed an "expert" on them, as much as anyone else I have read writing generally about firearms. I will add additional material at a later date from Boston T. Party's Boston's Gun Bible.
I think we have a 90/10 issue here and I am starting to spend as much time defending my edits/articles as I am making edits.
I have been working on these offline in MS Word as you suggested and pasting them onto CP. You asked me to do that rather than write it online as lots of drafts. There is not a lot to say about these things unless you are a "gut nut" like me. I am writing them for a basic audience like a new gun owner, not a highly technical one and not with huge amounts of extraneous details like Wikipedia. The gentleman "doth protest too much, methinks" TheAmericanRedoubt 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

I would suggest that an editor should take more than 11 minutes to write a new CP article.

See above response. TheAmericanRedoubt 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

When I write an article, I look for two or more independent, reliable sources.

I did and do. Have you read my sources? I have. TheAmericanRedoubt 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

I then write the article using my own words because I don't want Conservapedia to necessarily or inadvertently adopt some other person's views as its own.

No, they will adopt your views. I am relying on words from respected sources with permission. Would you like to e-mail him yourself to verify the permission? TheAmericanRedoubt 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
Perhaps you should look for newspaper or magazine articles about CETME. Wschact 05:31, 7 January 2015 (EST)

James Rawles' views on CETME are irrelevant, because there is no indication that he has given thought or study to this topic.

I don't think you are qualified to make such a statement and are showing your bias now. TheAmericanRedoubt 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
With utmost respect, the topic is a Spanish gun manufacturer. Mr. Rawles may know a few of the products, but what does he know about the overall company and its history, structure, capabilities and ownership? How many CETME‎ factories did he visit or employees did he interview? Wschact 05:31, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Further, when Rawles writes about some CETME products, it is incidental to his writing about survivalism and any article based on his writings will over-emphasize the relationship between those products and survivalism.

Or not. TheAmericanRedoubt 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

If I were to write an article about a company, I would include where the company is located, how it got started and its subsequent history, its products and how those products have been received in the market place. Ownership and structure can also be important.

Not for this article. Maybe for IBM, or Microsoft, but not CETME. I think you should go talk to a qualified "gun guy"TheAmericanRedoubt 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
I accept that a computer enthusiast would write about IBM or Microsoft and that a gun enthusiast will write about CETME. But a good article about any company would contain the items I listed above. Look at the Wikipedia article covering the Ithaca Gun Company. It was probably written by a gun enthusiast, but it covered the company. Could you please write articles like that when you start articles about companies? Wschact 05:38, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Writing a CP article takes more than 11 minutes and takes a bit of thought about the article's subject.

I spend more time than that. Ibid TheAmericanRedoubt 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

This is because CP's audience is different than the audience of the Survivor Blog, and a good author should ask himself "What would a CP user want to know about this subject?"

I do. TheAmericanRedoubt 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Time is better spent producing 10 articles of a decent length, than creating 100 snippets as articles.

Your opinion. There are thousands of very short one sentence place holder articles on CP. They serve a valid useful purpose. I have now spent more time defending my edits then is interesting for me. So I will continue doing what I am doing in terms of topics and current quality of work and time spent unless I am told to do otherwise by User:Aschlafly‎, User:Karajou, User:Conservative. Until I hear from admins telling me to stop what I have been working diligently on and that they consider it not useful to CP objectives and not fitting the CP audience of conservatives, who are generally not hoplophobic as I begin to wonder if you are perhaps certain liberal editors here. But until then, "I'll stick to my guns" -- pun intended. :-)
I am not biased against CETME. I am suggesting that if you want to write about CETME, you do an adequate job of it. If you don't think it is worthwhile to write about CETME, then don't wikilink to it in your other articles. Wschact 05:31, 7 January 2015 (EST)

I hope this helps. Thanks, Wschact 03:46, 7 January 2015 (EST)

You advice before on CP unwritten policy was helpful. This not so much. Thank you anyway. TheAmericanRedoubt 04:25, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Time is better spent producing 10 articles of a decent length, than creating 100 snippets as articles. I hope this helps. Thanks, Wschact 03:46, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Again, your opinion. If I do what you want then User:AlanE will be upset at so many red links. Please see the myriad useful 1 paragraph articles I CP, many of which I have learned from. I will get back to 90-10 rule actual work now. TheAmericanRedoubt 04:25, 7 January 2015 (EST)
AlanE has clarified his message further here. Wschact 15:29, 7 January 2015 (EST)
I have the same concern with the article G3. It also appears to be a 30 word quotation from Rawles, but the quotation marks are missing. It appeared 5 minutes after TAR's last edit to CETME. Isn't there a good source other than Rawles about this NATO battle rifle? Why was this article not entitled "Heckler and Koch G3"? (For a list of other meanings of G3, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G3) Thanks, Wschact 04:01, 7 January 2015 (EST)
The gentleman "doth protest too much, methinks" TheAmericanRedoubt 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
By the way, please look at the history of the G3 article which I didn't create... And you will see I improved it. TheAmericanRedoubt 04:27, 7 January 2015 (EST)
On Internet forums at this point, we have seen the word popcorn :-) Which by the way, Popcorn is a 24 word article. TheAmericanRedoubt 04:28, 7 January 2015 (EST)
Correct, the G3 article did exist before, but you overwrote the meager prior contents replacing it with a new version based on a 30 word quote from SurvivalBlog.
I have a concern with the article 7.62x51mm NATO. Why was this article not entitled "7.62x51mm NATO rifle"? Again the quote should be in quotation marks. I think that when User:Conservative gave you a 2500 length guideline, he did not have in mind that most of the article would be See also, External references and Bibliography. When User:AlanE was discussing red links, I think that he thought that the red links would be eliminated by writing sound articles, not one sentence articles. Perhaps we should ask him for clarification. Cheers.Wschact 05:18, 7 January 2015 (EST)
Micromanagement. Cheers? You must be British? TheAmericanRedoubt 05:28, 7 January 2015 (EST)

If you go to the most popular search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, AOL, Duck Duck Go, etc.) and query various topics, you will see in the top 10 search results decent size articles and not stub articles. Why? Because website visitors like more informative articles and not stub articles. The search engines are giving people what they want. If they didn't give people what they want, they would be out of business.

When the liberal LA Times gave a review of Conservapedia in its beginning stage, the reporter pointed out that Wikipedia had a lot more articles. So some Conservapedians went on a binge of creating stub articles. I was against this. Stub entries are fine for a dictionary, but not for an encyclopedia. And as I pointed out above, the public prefers more informative articles and not stub articles.

As far as Monday Night quarterbacking of articles in terms of the talk pages, if reasonable objections are raised, that is fine. But if it is largely a matter of liberal bellyaching due to their sacred cows being tipped over, then the author/authors of articles should not be obligated to engage in wheel spinning due to unreasonable liberal opponents of the articles. Conservative 08:01, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Thank you, Cons. One problem is that we patrol edits, and red flags should go up if there is a pattern of edits which raise reasonable objections. I agree that we are here to better serve our readers and to attract new readers. We are not under pressure to create one sentence articles. We developed our style manual because we are collectively being judged by our readers, who do not know who wrote which article. So, it is up to the patrolers to keep training all editors and push everyone toward compliance with Conservapedia's standards.
Perhaps Conservapedia needs to establish a two-part strategy of recruiting more editors and then having a formal mentoring program to greet and train them when the new editors arrive. Thanks, Wschact 11:08, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Window of opportunity for editing seems to be closing. What's going on?

The past 5 days while attempting to contribute additional information on the series of articles I have contributed on the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals of the Bible I have been startled and dismayed that the window of opportunity to make additional edits has been shortened.

Up to that point I have been able to begin at 08:30 and normally found the cut-off time for editing has been 02:30. Then, when I attempted to page preview about 8 hours work, believing that I would be able to further refine the text, the message that "you are not permitted" appeared about 22:35, 4 hours earlier than what had been normal (and which I had come to expect). I was able to return to the edit page I had been working on and leave it alone all night long until after 08:30, then continued editing it and finally submit it. It had taken a long time to complete. I'm glad it hasn't been altered.

I continued Monday 5th January with a brief period of editing to provide additional information to Book of Wisdom and successfully submitted it. But when I continued with Book of Sirach on Tuesday, the cut-off time was unexpectedly earlier at 18:35 hrs, 8 hours earlier than had been normal. So I returned to the edit page as it was and left it alone overnight until this morning with the computer still on. I copied it, then went to today's page, logged in, and replaced its text with the saved edit text pasted onto the page, and this was successful. Then I worked on it some more, adding some useful documentary links and then laboriously copied by hand, keyboarding from a book in the public domain two "Prologues" to the Book of Sirach, one of which is not available online (which is in an antique family Bible on display in my living room), and when I clicked "Preview", the message "you are not permitted" came up, and it was a real unexpected shock. This was at about 11:48 hours, almost 15 hours earlier than what had been usual. In attempting to printout the text I had edited (without using the "copy" tools feature) I lost about 2 hours work. I got some of it saved that way, but the majority of it was now lost, and I shall have to reconstruct it again later, if I can.

Is this circumstantial, because of the holiday season?, perhaps because most of the administrators are taking a break?,
or is it because of cold weather issues with internet and web hardware interlinkages?

It is curious in the context of the above that I was able to successfully preview this query without getting the "you are not permitted" message.

So, What's going on here? Please let me know. I wish you well. Pax vobis --Dataclarifier 13:57, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Contact the owner of the website at User talk:Aschlafly and briefly as possible explain the situation. In addition, ask for night editing rights. Conservative 22:03, 7 January 2015 (EST)
Thanks, Conservative! I left a brief note with Andrew Schlafly, with convenient link back to this entry. Appreciate your recommendation for request night editing rights. Pax vobis. --Dataclarifier 11:20, 9 January 2015 (EST)

Glossary categories

Conservapedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. There are a number of new categories being created such as: Category:Firearms Glossary‎, Category:Preparedness Glossary‎ and Category:Military Glossary‎ which would be better combined with Category:Firearms, Category:Survivalism and Category:Military‎ respectively. It is not clear why any particular article would be in the Firearms category or its Glossary counterpart. I wanted to get the views of other editors before I combine them. Thanks, Wschact 06:31, 8 January 2015 (EST)

Response to Wschact's Monday Night Quarterbacking

What Wschact said: (see also Category_talk:Firearms_Glossary) "Conservapedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Therefore it makes sense to have only one set of categories. All of the articles that would be placed in the "Firearms Glossary" category should be placed in the "Firearms" category. Thanks, Wschact 06:25, 8 January 2015 (EST)"

My final response: Dear Wschact, I strongly disagree about the Categories I have created. Based on these words of support for my Firearms-Preparedness project from User:Conservative: User_talk:TheAmericanRedoubt#User:Conservative_OK_on_the_Addition_of_Preparedness.2FSurvivalism_and_Gun_Articles_on_CP, I will be creating literally hundreds of articles on the the topic of firearms over the next few months. More than 50 in the next 2 weeks. And MANY of them will appropriately be initially short topics that will categorized under Category:Firearms Glossary versus the broader Category:Firearms. Otherwise Category:Firearms will over time become too large like the Category:History.

These short articles will include items such as recoil compensators, half-cock, headspace, IMR powder, wildcat cartridge, out-of-battery, zero-in, internal ballistics, length of pull, muzzle brake, percussion cap, trunnion, Picatinny rail, varmint rifle, pump-action, lever-action, action (firearms), safety (firearms), trigger (firearms), hammer (firearms), stock (firearms), forearm (firearms), match grade, rate of fire, Red dot sight, sabot, sawed-off shotgun, semi-wadcutter, short-barreled rifle, slamfire, hangfire, spitzer bullet, swage, telescoping stock, hammer bite, slide bite, slide (firearms), frame (firearms), receiver (firearms), etc, etc. to name a few.

I have put a lot of thought and energy into this project to attract a different audience of conservatives to our beloved Conservapedia. I first learned of Conservapedia from a hyperlink from James Wesley Rawles. And his popular website (The_Survival_Blog#Strong_Advocate_of_Conservapedia_over_Wikipedia) with more than 80 million unique visits since July 2005 and more than 320,000 unique visits per week is very happy to more frequently link to us where possible, doing his best to avoid what frequently calls the "LiberalPropagandaPedia.

Wschact, regarding the rather long See Also's I created a few thousand edits ago when I was new to Conservapedia editing, please allow me to shorten them for you by creating collapsible bottom of page Navigation Bar templates. Please see: Template_talk:Firearms_topics] and Template_talk:Internet_security_topics, etc.

Wschact, perhaps you would please consider working on creating some new content yourself or on editing existing articles in a field in which you are "subject matter expert" rather than constantly nit-picking the guns, preparedness and computer security fields. Did you notice I didn't say Ayurvedic medicine or Traditional Chinese medicine. I have put those alternative medicine projects which so upset you on hold for a bit in order to wait and see what the CP Admins have to say or not say.

Wschact, if you kindly would let me focus and get back to lots of editing of the areas in which I have a good amount of knowledge and maybe you could then review my edits in 30 days and I will have a more open mind to your suggestions which at this point are not very constructive.

I think I will go back to the Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule rather than pay to much attention to "squeaky wheel" noisy liberal and/or RINO liberal style critics here. Not to suggest that you are either of those since I don't know anything about you except for what you write here.

I will not be responding as often to your very frequent comments since it is beginning to take up an inordinate amount of time diplomatically answering then and justifying them compared to Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule.

I will quote User:Conservative to answer your continued attempted micro-management of so many of my contributions: "As far as Monday Night quarterbacking of articles in terms of the talk pages, if reasonable objections are raised, that is fine. But if it is largely a matter of liberal bellyaching due to their sacred cows being tipped over, then the author/authors of articles should not be obligated to engage in wheel spinning due to unreasonable liberal opponents of the articles. Conservative 08:01, 7 January 2015 (EST)"

This will be the last I shall write to you on these matters. Again, I repeat, the gentleman "doth protest too much, methinks".

Why don't you please live the gun stuff to the "gun nuts". :-)

Good day. TheAmericanRedoubt 07:35, 8 January 2015 (EST)

This is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia as a group. We are writing a fair and factually accurate encyclopedia as a team. Our writing level is targeted to the reading skills and background of a high school age student. While we make a sincere effort not to step on each others toes, we work together and any of us is free to correct each other. Such changes are not to be taken as a personal affont, but rather as a good faith effort to improve the product. To the extent that I and other people have commented on TAR's contributions by name, this was in an effort to mentor a newcomer who still has a lot to learn about Conservapedia's writing style.
It is too easy to dismiss valid criticism as "noisy liberal and/or RINO" comments. Anyone can see that the criticism has been about a lack of content or inaccurate content rather than the content being insufficiently liberal and/or RINO. It is impossible condemn criticism here as "micromanagement" because Conservapedia strives for accuracy and consistency. Some mistakes are small, but if repeated enough times can create big problems.
We cannot stop editors from creating short articles, but we hope that the short stub articles will grow into more comprehensive ones. If you believe that an article will never grow beyond a short definition, then do not create a separate article for that subject. Instead, consider creating a single article entitled "Firmarm terminology" or "Firearm glossary".
Our goal is not "to attract a different audience of conservatives to our beloved Conservapedia." Our goal is to attract the general public here and to provide them with the best possible content. If the content is good, then they will return and we will get more traffic. We also have a goal of attracting more editors, so using pejorative terms like "gun nuts" does not help on that front. We ask that when someone does join our editing team, they check their biases at the door but retain common sense in making this group effort a success. I will welcome the comments of other people on whether we want separate glossary categories. Thanks, Wschact 07:56, 8 January 2015 (EST)

The Liberals smear campaign Won -- I now retire from editing Conservapedia

I must say that the liberal smear campaign and relentless edits/deletions from 5 very loud CP liberal trolls / RINOs (besides the vociferous User:Wschact, you know who you are and will be happy to know you have won) has been no fun. I am sad to say, it is much worse edit wars and liberal reverts than anything I contributed over the years to Wikipedia. Sorry User:Aschlafly, User:Conservative and User:Jpatt, but I have lost the enthusiasm to continue contributing to CP in the face of this much liberal opposition. Thank you 3 for what you do for the conservative movement. I strongly suspect that the frequent sock puppet hacker-vandalist accounts were User:Wschact or one his friends using a VPN since all the vandals edits were directed to things he was revert warring with me over. God bless. TheAmericanRedoubt 02:26, 9 January 2015 (EST)

User:Wschact's Stubborn Hounding: 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work out of 179 edits, 129 concern my edits

Between December 16 and January 8, out of 179 edits made by Wschact, 129 concern either Wschact rapidly changing my edits soon after I complete them / reverting them or complaining to the Community/Admins about my contributions. That is to say, 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work. That is a good example of being tenaciously hounded by strong opposition. Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Wschact

I didn't really want to put this part about Wschact on CP Talk pages or Community Portal since I don't want to further alienate him from me or make him more dogged in his pursuit of editing/patrolling/trolling my contributions. But his recent remarks to my "Retirement" posting, made me decide to mention these 72% statistics and to come out of "retirement". TheAmericanRedoubt 19:42, 9 January 2015 (EST)

Inspired by Karajou and User:Conservative to Not Retire due to User:Wschact' Dogged Hounding

Dear Admins Karajou and Conservative

My biggest concern, that finally temporarily "took the wind out of my sails" and prompted me to temporarily retire as a contributor, is Wschact, who makes my Conservapedia contributions the subject of 72% of his edits over a 24 day period, as I will show below.

My biggest concern isn't SamHB who explained himself well here:http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SamHB#.22Troll.22_Editing_by_User:SamHB_of_Numerous_articles_I_am_Working_on_.2F_Editing_.2F_Contributing, saying that "I promised that I would revert your things only once, and I mean it."

Nor is my concern AlanE's presumptuously slanderous race baiting comment here: I first said to AlanE: "Please better to stop the "Revert War" (unless it is by an American CP administrator) and instead make comments and suggestions on this talk page for editing the material. "Free state" is a big topic in the American Conservative, Libertarian and Christian circles. The old meaning of Antebellum south is rarely used except among historians. I would be willing to move some of it to an essay, however, the majority of it matches conservative values. Please discuss in a civil way without using words like hideous, offensive, etc like User:SamHB used for the previous revert." TheAmericanRedoubt 02:57, 17 December 2014 (EST)

Alan rudely Ad hominem responded to me: "Excuse the following...but I am cross, and Sam is I know to be a reasonable and intelligent man - and a friend.... Obviously I can't win against someone who probably sits at his computer for hours on end with an assault rifle beside him with one eye out the window just hoping that some one who is black or jewish or liberal will put a foot onto his property so that he can shoot them. What larks!! (Pip old chap)). I won't go on because I see you are like those I occasionally met in the old days in Outback pubs who felt naked without their firearms and were usually relieved of their ammunition before the publican would serve them a beer. Cheers mate." AlanE 04:06, 17 December 2014 (EST)" Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Free_state I decided to simply ignore AlanE since that was the last I heard of him.

What finally temporarily took the remaining "wind out of my sails" is Wschact’s almost month-long dogged efforts: I assert that between December 16 and January 8, out of 179 edits made by Wschact, 129 concern either Wschact rapidly changing my edits soon after I complete them / reverting them or complaining to the Community/Admins about my contributions. That is to say, 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work. That is a good example of being tenaciously hounded by strong opposition. Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Wschact

Here http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany#Interpretation_of_copyright_policy Wschact doesn't even know the difference between 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge/ammunition and a "7.62x51mm NATO rifle" and hence wrongly insisting that the Admins move 7.62x51mm NATO to "7.62x51mm NATO rifle". And the so-called copyright issues he brings are been handled by MLA citations/references/bibliography and fair use.

I made more than 1000+ small edits on CP for several months before contributing much of anything original to be sure that I got a feel for the actual format, content, categories, see also's, stubs or lack of stubs, politics, guidelines, etc. I also wanted to make sure that my edits proved to the CP admins that I am sincere and trustworthy, not a troll or parodist. Then in late November when my sabbatical began I begin much more extensive CP contributions. That was when on December 16 I can on the Wschact radar scope.

I was asked by one JoeyJ (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TheAmericanRedoubt&oldid=1130110#Orphaned_Pages) to deorphan pages which I then began to do. But the edits I make to de-ophan them by adding them appropriately to a See Also or a wiki link within the article were getting frequently deleted by Wschact. This happened a lot. He would keep saying I am violating the CP policy.

Over the next few months while I am taking a sabbatical from my work, I have a lot of time/energy/knowledge to contribute to CP generating new content. Alas, at the moment I am feeling too harassed by their constant rapid nit-picking and having to 10/90 Talk Page explain my every step versus doing 90/10 actual article work. I've never experienced this before in an online Wiki or forum community, I am sad to say. Even on Wikipedia, I would get at least a few days to a week to perfect a short article or a contribution to one before the liberal vultures would swoop in to eat it up (if they did even). Because CP is a much smaller community of editors, they give me no time to improve upon my work before they come in and revert/delete. It's truly demoralizing/intimidating for a new editor. I don't know what else to say. I feel CP is an amazing voice for our American conservative movement, but I didn't know it would have so many fast-moving critics/deleters/reverters against anything I contribute in the realm of firearms or survivalism/preparedness articles. Yet they were against much on complementary medicine and amateur radio as well.

It's funny, the ONLY contributions of mine that the liberal/RINO editors didn't touch were the Buddhist articles. I think that is because most liberals like Buddhism. Although Catholic, I formally studied comparative religions and CP's Buddhist and Hindu articles are very slim at the moment, so I have much to add there as well. But again, at the moment, I am becoming "gun shy" with their liberal/RINO sights all aimed at me now, especially on http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal.

Persistence is a virtue, as Calvin Coolidge said:

"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.
Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

Thank you for listening. Any advice or encouragement would be appreciated.

TheAmericanRedoubt 19:42, 9 January 2015 (EST)

Your sheer volume of edits has the liberals worried. Since they can't take CP down, they need to force out productive members. Improving CP is against their interests. Every edit is a poke in their eye. Stay the course and keep on trucking. Good work!--Jpatt 22:52, 9 January 2015 (EST)
Roger that User:Jpatt! The encouraging words are sincerely appreciated. My sails now have full wind in them again and I added a backup generator just in case so I can stay the course amidst the gusty liberal winds that try to sink the ship. I feel supported now in adding lots of firearms articles. TheAmericanRedoubt 23:25, 9 January 2015 (EST)
Lock and load! And keep your powder dry and don't let the liberals rain on it. :) If SamHB behaves rudely, tell Karajou and he will straighten him out. Conservative 00:10, 10 January 2015 (EST)
What is this? A mixed metaphor competition? And Cons. If you are going to invoke Oliver Cromwell, it's load and lock. (I struggled against the thought that you might be going off half cocked.) AlanE 00:56, 10 January 2015 (EST)
This thread seems to be in two places; here, and in TAR's talk page.
JPatt: You have always been fair-minded in your dealings with me, but I think you are falling into a rhetorical trap in your comments above about liberals:
Your sheer volume of edits has the liberals worried. Since they can't take CP down, they need to force out productive members. Improving CP is against their interests. Every edit is a poke in their eye.
The rhetorical trap is conflating anyone who disagrees with oneself as a "liberal". It is a very common fallacy here at CP. What you said about liberals may well be true, but the context suggests that you are applying it to the 5 people that TAR is complaining about. (I assume the 5 are myself, Wschact, AugustO, PhilH, and AlanE.) I don't think the things you said above about liberals apply to all of us. We are not forcing out productive members; in fact, I have just been forced out, complete with extremely explicit block threats (above and below) by Cons. Improving CP is not, and has never been, against my interests.
I believe that abhorrence of treason is a very conservative value. I abhor treason, and I take accusations that my home state is treasonous and unconstitutional very seriously. Yet this accusation has been put back in, and there is nothing I can do about it except leave. My rude language was because of that abhorrence.
I believe that CP's presentation on relativity is in good condition, so no further editing on my part will be necessary. I will leave now. SamHB 13:44, 10 January 2015 (EST)
Some material here, being about SamHB personally, and various disagreements with him personally, has been moved to his talk page, User_talk:SamHB#Material_moved_from_the_Community_Portal. It is not relevant to Conservapedia generally. As the person who initiated the use of this page to discuss matters of general interest to the Conservapedia community, I feel a certain responsibility to keep the discussions on topic. SamHB 14:22, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Interesting article

While researching this topic, I came across an interesting article from the Chicago Tribune from 2011 at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-11/health/ct-met-nccam-overview-20111211_1_cancer-treatment-alternative-medicine-breast-cancer-researcher

In traditional/folk medicine there is a strain of thought based on practicality and treatments working for families/communities/societies over a long time. On the other hand, there is another strain based on New Age impractical ideas and other impractical ideas.
In Western medicine, there is a problem with greed/fraud and the strength of marketing campaigns/market position (industry leaders with name recognition and a strong brand are hard to combat) winning the day instead of an objective cost/benefit analysis. Plus, the case of Ignaz Semmelweis (he proposed that doctors wash their hands due to its beneficial effects and was met by fierce opposition) shows that errant tradition (we have always done it this way) rather than objective criteria does happen within Western medicine. Conservative 01:30, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Subject matter expert in electromagnetism

I notice the recent creation of the Lenz's Law page. This really isn't encyclopedic—people aren't going to come away with the feeling that CP is a source of good information on the topic. I think there may be a connection with the Meissner effect and with "eddy currents". Does anyone know about this?

Is there someone with the knowledge, expertise, wherewithal, and motivation who can put together a good explanation? I think it would make fascinating reading if done well. SamHB 00:14, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Response to User:Conservative's January 13 question

[I struck out my Jan 5 sentence above before Cons left his Jan 13 posting immediately above.] Conservapedia faces a number of challenges in attracting readers and maintaining viability (and beyond that thriving). On the one hand, Cons is correct that there have been some vandals and "parodists" like Markman who have wasted our time and chased some valuable editors away. On the other hand, bad writing, inconsistent format, and other technical glitches undermine our credibility and discourage readers from returning. So, what we need (and what I have done) is to work here for years on cleaning up after vandals as well improving the writing quality and consistency of style. Of course I have also added a ton of content. If Cons wants to identify "enemies of Conservapedia", he should be equally on the lookout for vandals, parodists and poor writing that does not meet our style guide. I agree that generally people should not hover over or smother other editors while they are working. I am giving TAR more space to learn. Yet, because this wiki is a group collaboration, I expect people to come along and edit what I wrote last week, and everyone else here expects that I will edit what they wrote. The best of the public will produce a coherent whole from the collaboration. (By the way, I do not have any "distain" for TAR and respect his wide variety of interests and background.) Thanks, Wschact 01:01, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Three points: 1) TheAmericanRedoubt said some of your edits related to his were helpful. But the sheer volume of them were uncalled for. 2) Your "mountain man" comment reeks of disdain. There is no hiding it. Best to admit it and move on. The same liberal elitist attitude could be said of your absolutist stance against traditional medicine given that many people of modest means throughout the world depend on it and common things like turmeric/ginger have been scientifically shown to benefit people medicinally without toxic side effects (I recognize traditional medicine has its problems, but so does Western medicine so good judgement needs to be used by consumers. Conservatives believe in giving adult consumers choices. It ultimately comes down to a cost/benefit/toxicity/"willingness to risk" decision. Japanese consumers, who tend to be more health conscious than many cultures, use highly advanced Western medicine and often use traditional medicine too and there life expectancy is 5 years longer than Americans). 3) Some of your reversions were ideologically based and uncalled for. One way or another, this is going to stop. Conservative 01:21, 13 January 2015 (EST)
Wschact, it's not your job to edit out conservatism, which is what I and other people here have seen you doing. VargasMilan 01:24, 13 January 2015 (EST)
Cons: I withdrew the comment at 22:34 12 January so let's move on. Let's wait for Andy to decide the medicine question or whether Conservapedia embraces a Dystopia vision. Vargas: I would never intentionally "edit out conservatism". Perhaps we have different ideas of what good writing requires. I take item #5 of Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia seriously: "We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts." Thanks, Wschact 01:48, 13 January 2015 (EST)
Wschact sometimes (not always) has an arrogant attitude hidden under a veneer of politeness. If something falls out of his area of expertise and he is against it, well it has to be reverted. I demonstrated above that his knowledge of economic history and economics is quite limited. In addition, he has a disdain for those outside of cities/suburbia or he never would have used the term "mountain man". I am not saying he cannot change his attitude, but there is definitely a problem. Conservative 01:58, 13 January 2015 (EST)
Preparedness is not synonymous with dystopian. People can have sizable amounts of precious metals in their portfolios for example, but still own stocks. You can have an emergency kit in your car without thinking that sooner or later you are going to get into a very serious accident. You are setting up a false dichotomy. In addition, it is possible for an encyclopedia to cover survivalism in an objective manner. Conservative 02:06, 13 January 2015 (EST)
With due respect, the statement in question, which I withdrew hours ago was, "I am not an expert in living as a mountain man in a post-civilization world." It was a statement of self-depreciation and modesty in recognition of my own limitations, not one of arrogance. I do not want to plan for a post-civilization dystopia but rather I want conservative principles applied to American society. I and other conservatives believe in America and its ability to overcome any challenge. A small faction is trying to bet against American society surviving and to profit from its downfall. I sense that you agree with my side of this bet, and you agree that my remarks about dystopia were not directed toward preparedness. (The Scout motto is "Be Prepared.") Let's move on. Thanks, Wschact 02:18, 13 January 2015 (EST)
The alternative/traditional medicine decision has already been decided. I suggested that TheAmericanRedoubt compromise by not adding ayurvedic medicine content and he is amenable to this. Second, I already know beforehand that your acts of illegitimate behavior towards TheAmericanRedoubt will cease one way or another. I am hoping that things are done in the most harmonious way possible. Hopefully, you take the hint and act in a more productive manner. Conservative 02:37, 13 January 2015 (EST)

If memory serves, and it may not, I have the impression from your main page talk comments that you are a liberal/moderate. And VargasMilan indicated that you are attempting to edit out conservatism from Conservapedia. I said my piece. I am also willing to move on. I don't believe in holding grudges. Conservative 02:46, 13 January 2015 (EST)

One other matter: Not all Conservapedians are American. Admin Joaquin is Mexican for example. And Conservapedia has content that covers areas outside of the USA. Conservative 03:01, 13 January 2015 (EST)
We agree on non-American conservatives, and we agree that Survivalism can be covered objectively on Conservapedia. The reason I focused on the American context above is that society in some foreign countries have indeed collapsed, but that America is exceptional and we should not bet on an American collapse. Also, although I may be more moderate than some people, I am certainly not a liberal. Perhaps some of my libertarian views might create that mis-impression. Thanks, Wschact 03:09, 13 January 2015 (EST)
Not hoping for America to collapse and it has a lot of tangible/intangible assets. And even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia did not turn into a third world nation. Second, no doubt many dominant players on the world stage who collapsed thought they were exceptional before they fell. Success followed by complacency is a common human failing. Conservative 03:26, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Temporary 7 Day Ban: WShact again removing Conservative POV material from Survival/Firearm Related Articles

Dear User:Jpatt and User:Karajou, I would appreciate your help on addressing Wshact issue again this since User:Conservative told me to talk to you since he is temporarily busy on off-Wiki related business. Thank you again.

Instead of contributing new material, I again have had to spend significant time restoring the diverse conservative point of view topics/materials that WShact continues to remove/delete/subtly edit out from Category:Survivalism and firearms, Second Amendment related articles. The Survival Blog articles in particular took 30 minutes to restore material deleted by Wshact from his numerous small edits (so they couldn't be easily reverted). I had to spend time removing Wshact's biased (and improperly formatted resulting in a reference error) source/ref from a biased competing commercial website rather than unbiased actual Alexa site reference. http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:The_Survival_Blog#WShact_again_removing_Conservative_POV_material_from_Survival.2FFirearm_Related_Articles TheAmericanRedoubt 06:47, 13 January 2015 (EST)

In re-reviewing Wschact's continued harassment of Survivalism-Prepper-Firearms articles under the guise of making lots of small improvements to the article (which cannot be easily reverted). I realized Wshact, under the guise of reorganizing the article and putting it in the active voice instead of passive voice, has again deleted significant conservative point of view content. It was to hard to continue trying to restore the vandalized article. Thus I had to restore my original version of the article.

Dealing with this whole affair of continued harassment has just cost me 1 hour of my time that I had budgeted to spend contributing new firearms content.

In response to Wshact's continued harassment despite repeated warnings, I am temporarily banning him for 7 days. Admins who have been involved in correcting Wshact's aggressive behavior, please correct the ban time if appropriate. TheAmericanRedoubt 07:11, 13 January 2015 (EST)

My comments

From what I have seen so far, user Wschact has taken it upon himself to follow TAR on this site, either in removing material previously posted or taking actual control of particular pages away from him. This raises a serious problem as to the subject of collaboration between individuals - which has been stated by Wschact several times that that is what his intention is. What I am seeing instead is a typical tactic used in Wikipedia when an editor takes over someone else's project, then blames the original editor for being uncooperative; tells the the original editor that he cannot "own" the page, but takes control of the page away from him in such a manner that he is the new "owner" of it. That is a tactic which has no business within this website, and it is not going to be tolerated here.

So, what will happen is this: persons who originate/create pages will be allowed to finish them, unmolested. Anyone else who wishes to contribute to the page concerned will ask the creator of the page first; or leave pertinent, additional information on the talk page; or do nothing more than simple grammar/spell check. Karajou 08:44, 13 January 2015 (EST)

The points above have nothing to do with the content of "TAR"'s contributions, he is just disrupting the very structure of this wiki. If you have a bull on speed in a china-shop, it doesn't matter much whether he is well-meaning or malevolent.
--AugustO 10:18, 13 January 2015 (EST)
After some thought, I am rescinding the above. It prevents people from openly cooperating in a voluntary manner, and that's what I'd rather have. Karajou 08:20, 14 January 2015 (EST)

I contacted TheAmericanRedoubt about the red link situation

Two things:

1. He is going to be lighter on the red links, but not completely stop. It would require a lot of extra work for him to completely stop.

2. He is going to be a long term editor so the red links will be filled in. He isn't counting on others to fill in the links.

I think this is a reasonable compromise. Conservative 14:15, 14 January 2015 (EST)

TheAmericanRedoubt's Red Link Response During Phone Call with User:Conservative
Thank you User:Conservapedia for your phone call with me and for your inspiring and unwavering dedication both to Conservapedia and to our conservative movement. I agree with both of these points. Over the next 12 months I promise to completely fill in at least 95% of my red links with actual full fledged detailed articles or at least 2 to 3 paragraph shorter articles only in the cases where a long article is not useful and would be like Wikipedia style excessively detailed unnecessary verbosity. TheAmericanRedoubt 14:22, 14 January 2015 (EST)

Category tag compromise and TheAmericanRedoubt

I will agree that TheAmericanRedoubt has been overdoing the category tags. For example, for "police state" he would put a category tag of "internet". Yes, a police state attempts to control the "internet", but that is not how someone would look up an article on "police state".

I told TheAmericanRedoubt to pretend he was playing the game show "Family Feud" with Richard Dawson where people try to come up with a word/phrase that matches a topic/word. Now if he was on that game show and said "Internet" for the topic "Police state" he would lose in that game show every time. The user TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) saw my point and is going to do his category tags differently from now on.

And although I am not a Wikipedia fan, I said as far as the category tags, pretend you are creating a Wikipedia article in most cases.

My request to other editors, please do not be persnickety with TheAmericanRedoubt about the category tags. He promised to do better on the category tags and now sees how he has been overdoing it. Conservative 13:38, 14 January 2015 (EST)

TheAmericanRedoubt's Category Response During Phone Call with User:Conservative

I agree on the police state article and quite a few others. Thank you for the mentoring User:Conservative and User:Karajou. Although I too am not a fan of Wikipedia, as far as the category tags, I will comparatively look at similar articles in Wikipedia to see how many category tags they are using for a given article. User:Conservative and I discussed on the phone the Category:Firearms and I told him I will still be using/creating "granular" categories, similar to how Wikipedia does it. For example, today I just created the categories:
Category:Bolt-action Rifles to match my newly created article Bolt-action which contains new red links that I promise to fill in for all of these new shorter articles on firearms such as action (firearms), bolt (firearms), breech (firearms), barrel (firearms), bolt handle, cheek weld, stock, trigger (firearms), round (firearms), chamber (firearms), magazine (firearms) firing pin, shell (firearms), accuracy (firearms), reliability (firearms), action (firearms).
Over the next 12 months, I will be creating an article for each of the major bolt-action rifles in the firearms industry such as the Remington Model 700, Savage Model 110, Ruger American Rifle (hunting rifle), Ruger M77, Ruger Gunsite Scout, Steyr Scout, scout rifle, Barrett M99 .50 BMG, M24 Sniper Weapon System and M40 rifle (sniper rifle), Mosin-Nagant, Winchester Model 70, Mauser, Mauser M 98, M1903 Springfield, Lee-Enfield, to name just a few. Now you can see how I really am a gun enthusiast. :-)
Category:Firearms Components - In both of these new categories, I will be creating numerous articles over the next 12 months, so other editors removing the Category tag or the internal Wiki link brackets from any existing articles in the Category:Firearms or Category:Survivalism (like bolt-action) is just creating lots of unnecessary additional work for me in the near future to have to go back and re-add the categorization and Wiki link brackets and will thus "orphan" my new articles which would have been well integrated into the Wiki link system. Some, but not all of these articles will be part of the new category Category:Firearms Glossary, Category:Military Glossary, Category:Preparedness Glossary. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Firearm_Actions&curid=133818&action=history
Fellow editors: Thank you, in advance, for your patience and following of the guidance from User:Conservative regarding his advice to not be overly "persnickety" / fastidious about my work in this area. I appreciate it. I promise that over the next 12 months I will re-adjust my categorizations on most of the articles I have edited to be similar to the granularity level seen on Wikipedia. This is quite "granular" however. As I discussed on the phone with User:Conservative, it doesn't mean I will be having each article I edit/contribute having only 1 or 2 categories. As evidenced by the James Wesley Rawles or The Survival Blog articles, some articles may have many valid, yet granular categorizations.
TheAmericanRedoubt 14:31, 14 January 2015 (EST)
On numerous occasions, it has been pointed out that the user:conservative account is accessed by a number of different people. Yet you state that you were in contact with only one person - I told him I will still be using/creating "granular" categories, similar to how Wikipedia does it - Are you saying that the user:conseravtive account is in fact only accessed by one person? And that person is male? Your post concerning your phone-call contradicts many of the claims that the user:conservative account has made... EJamesW 15:07, 14 January 2015 (EST)
In the phone call in question, TAR was told that User: Conservative account consists of more than one editor. Feel free to confirm this matter with TAR (In addition, you can ask Karajou who was informed of this matter also).
Second, given the existence of voice changing software and an editor of the User: Conservative account possibly speaking through an agent/friend/family member/etc., the User: Conservative account remains veiled under a fog of mystery. :) Conservative 15:40, 14 January 2015 (EST)
ROTFL. :-) When I first talked with the User:Conservative, despite the male voice, due to the sound I suspected the voice did seem a little like it was going through some sort of voice distortion box. The User:Conservative wouldn't tell me his/her name since he/she said he/she is part of a Conservative group of users and that the current speaker is merely the vocal representative of the diverse members of that secretive group. Despite talking with the User:Conservative, I wasn't able to pierce the veil of secrecy and hence am not able to resolve User:AugustO's and User:EJamesW's pressing concerns. TheAmericanRedoubt 16:48, 14 January 2015 (EST)

A voice distortion box

--AugustO 15:51, 14 January 2015 (EST)

Category:Nuclear Target Structures

Can someone please tell me how France - or the Attack on Pearl Harbor - belong in this category? Can someone please tell me what sense it make to wait for User:TheAmericanRedoubt to put every article with the slightest connection to nuclear power (or perhaps the letter "N") into this category? --AugustO 16:07, 15 January 2015 (EST)

There are any objections to dropping this category? Today, the main threats are to terrrorism targets rather than Soviet intercontinental missiles. So, there is a danger that if we put undue emphasis on Cold War threats, home schooled high school students will over-react. Categories are short hand and do not properly communicate the subtle dimensions for evaluating the "Nuclear Target Structures" designation. I do not object to a stand-alone article on this topic. Wschact 23:11, 7 February 2015 (EST)

Obama says the newspaper exercised bad judgment and brought this upon themselves.

User:TheAmericanRedoubt writes in his Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists on Charlie Hebdo that "Obama says the newspaper exercised bad judgment and brought this upon themselves". User:EJamesW asked for a citation for this claim, I did so too. Unfortunately, User:TheAmericanRedoubt hasn't shared his sources with us yet - and I haven't found any source stating something similar...

If President Obama really said something along this lines, it should make the front-page of Conservapedia!

--AugustO 15:21, 15 January 2015 (EST)

The arrogant and highly atheistic/secular French and French muslim situation is a volatile mix. The French atheist/muslim situation will probably get worse before it better. There seems to be a feedback loop of discrimination/hatred/violence/non-assimilation going on.[8]
The Ireland/Italian muslim situation seems a lot less volatile. I think the Irish/Italians (who tend to be more religious) are nicer and less arrogant then the atheistic/secularists French.[9] And Ireland's Muslims are more highly educated.[10]
In addition, judging from his radio mini-debates with theists, the Irish atheist Michael Nugent seems nicer and less abrasive than many prominent atheists/agnostics (see: Atheism and arrogance). Research shows that atheists are more charitable when they are around Christians/Christian culture.[11] Maybe atheist become nicer when they are around theists/Christians as well. Conservative 07:29, 17 January 2015 (EST)
All interesting observations, but they have nothing to do with the problem: Please give a source for the claim that Obama says the newspaper exercised bad judgment and brought this upon themselves. Do you anything about this, User:Conservative? --AugustO 08:28, 17 January 2015 (EST)
If TAR did indeed say this, I think he made a mistake. At the same time, Obama is pretty fanatical about not calling Islamic terrorists Muslims. And Islam does have one of the most violent pasts in terms of various religions.

The secular/godless and evolution loving countries of Germany/France/UK who have sub-fertility rates are projected to be overrun by Muslims by 2030.[12]

I do know that a German Christian denomination that adheres to creationism is growing.

I think this is due to businesses having labor shortages and needing workers and the respective countries immigration policies and the countries wanting to support pensioners, but I could be mistaken.

In Switzerland, which is one of the most biblical creation loving countries of Europe and has more restrictive immigration policies, the proliferation of problem causing Muslims by 2030 is not projected to be an issue. Ireland does not appear to be projected to have a problem either (Perhaps it is because they are more religious than most Europe. The fertility rate of Ireland is 2.01 births per woman).

Of course, the projections of Muslims overrunning Germany/UK/France has the militant evolutionists/atheists/agnostics/secularists upset. For example, Richard Dawkins frequently mentions Muslims on his Twitter feed. If only these countries were more Christianity/creationism loving and had more children. All this unpleasantness with radical Muslims causing significant problems in their countries could be avoided.

On December 23, 2012, Professor Eric Kaufmann who teaches at Birbeck College, University of London wrote:

“I argue that 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious.

On the other hand, the secular West and East Asia has very low fertility and a rapidly aging population. The demographic disparity between the religious, growing global South and the aging, secular global North will peak around 2050. In the coming decades, the developed world's demand for workers to pay its pensions and work in its service sector will soar alongside the booming supply of young people in the third world. Ergo, we can expect significant immigration to the secular West which will import religious revival on the back of ethnic change. In addition, those with religious beliefs tend to have higher birth rates than the secular population, with fundamentalists having far larger families. The epicentre of these trends will be in immigration gateway cities like New York (a third white), Amsterdam (half Dutch), Los Angeles (28% white), and London, 45% white British."[13]

Of course, this all bad news for evolutionists/atheists/agnostics. I am hoping that theological conservative and biblical Christianity ultimately prevails in Europe in the 21st century. A lot is dependent on evangelism and policies regarding immigration. Conservative 14:13, 17 January 2015 (EST)

In addition, in Switzerland, they have generous gun laws and a gun culture (and low gun fatality rates), so citizens are better able to protect themselves against radical muslims. They are not so dependent on police/SWAT response times. Conservative 14:25, 17 January 2015 (EST)

Spamming links to external sites

"Spamming links to external sites" once was a blockable offense. So, what is Conservapedia's current policy regarding the new User:OGSMEDIA (get it: OGS Media) advertising the site http://offgridsurvival.com/, where all kinds of outdoor equipment is advertised and sold? (See: http://offgridsurvival.com/store/ ) --AugustO 04:17, 16 January 2015 (EST)

Hottest year ever!

The drive-by media does this "hottest-year ever" hooey almost every year, although this year they seem to be laying it on especially thick. The most accurate available temperature record is the UAH data based on satellite readings.[14] By this standard, 2014 was only the seventh warmest year on record. (1998 was the warmest.) It will be months before the surface temperature record for 2014 is complete. NASA is just guesstimating at this point. PeterKa 06:00, 17 January 2015 (EST)

Here is the global temperature record since 1979 based on satellite data. In the last 35 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.2 C. PeterKa 06:21, 18 January 2015 (EST)


When I peruse Special:Random, I often encounter articles displaying information which is quite out of date (e.g, Stewart Bradley or Anne Arundel County, MD). Sometimes I'm able to update it, but at other times, it isn't in my field of special knowledge (or interest). I hope that I haven't overstepped my bounds, but

  1. I created the Category:Outdated Articles for such pages
  2. I made the Template:Outdated: this will put a small warning on top of a page and put the page in the category. See Anne Arundel County, MD for an example.

I'd appreciate if someone would check the template and approve of it. Thanks --AugustO 08:25, 18 January 2015 (EST)

User: TheAmericanRedoubt

I received some communication from TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR). He is tackling an off wiki project right now. I believe he will be editing later this year. That is all the information I have right now. Conservative 11:56, 4 February 2015 (EST)

  • It's not the first time that User:TheAmericanRedoubt took off for a considerable amount of time: after making hundreds of edits until mid-July 2014, he seized editing for three months.
  • I hope no one expects us to cope with eye-sores like Preparedness (Conservapedia's article with the most categories) for the next three months!
  • I won't comb through the articles to which User:TheAmericanRedoubt contributed, but should I encounter something like this, e.g., via Special:Random, I will take action.
  • Thanks for unblocking User:Wschact!
--AugustO 14:53, 4 February 2015 (EST)
I think we would all be in a better position to make decisions about what to do with TAR's material if we knew his actual intent. We're all relieved, of course, that the "Ayurvedic medicine", "Vata", "Dosha", "Kapha" stuff has been removed, but it would be good to make a decision about a few other things. I'm sure we're all in agreement that water doesn't really have a noteworthy relationship with survivalism. But there are many other irrelevant categories and "see also"'s that need to be addressed, as well as the implication that Andy's, Cons's, and my home states are treasonous.
So I would suggest that we get TAR to tells us his intentions directly, rather than taking the word of someone who is known to have peculiar fantasies about his alter egos. I fully believe that Cons and TAR are different people, but it would be good if TAR were able to communicate other than through Cons. It's a little too much like Clark Kent's uncanny ability to summon Superman.
@TAR: I realize you may be busy with other things, but it should be possible for you to post a really quick note without getting distracted. If you don't want to communicate in this public forum, could you please send me an email at sam4557@gmail.com?
SamHB 22:42, 4 February 2015 (EST)
Sometimes volunteers "bite off more than they can chew". This happens a lot, because the higher priorities of life obligations get in the way of a volunteer's best intentions. That is why projects like Conservapedia are team efforts -- so that others can pick up the slack when any volunteer has to step back. TAR volunteered to take existing content from certain sources and to convert it into the proper form for Conservapedia articles. 1) Some of his conversions needed more work on the Manual of Style front. 2) Some of his anticipated article subjects are red links, but TAR has not have a chance to bring over the content to actually write the article. 3) TAR made red links for a number of essays, which have not yet been written or adapted from the other website. 4) TAR started a large number of new categories before he appreciated the tree structure of categories and those categories need to be repositioned corrected. I estimate that it would take about a year of full time work to complete TAR's ambitious plan.
Since TAR is unavailable for a while, the entire team needs to work out a plan for addressing all four areas. While I am stepping back to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, I would encourage the team to create a check list of items that need to be addressed. Once the plan is mapped out and approved, I would volunteer to do my share, if that was the consensus. Thanks, Wschact 23:28, 4 February 2015 (EST)

What I don't want to happen

I believe that 3 of the primary reasons why TAR rubbed Wschact the wrong way and caused him to act inappropriately in some ways (both myself and VargasMilan believe this happened):

1. Alternative medicine issue - This issue has been resolved for the time being. Personally, I think that both Western World medicine and alternative medicine both have a lot of quackery within them and that an evidence based approach is best (there has been a lot of medical science fraud in recent years [15][16]). To a certain extent, Billy Bones in the classic work Treasure Island was right: Doctors is all swabs, Jim! The Japanese, who live longer/healthier than the people who live in many countries of the Western World, use both systems of health care.

2. Survivalism - One of the reasons why I think this rubs Wsacht (who is a liberal) the wrong way is that much of the recent popularity of survivalism within some quarters of conservatism/libertarianism has the assumption that the economic system fashioned by liberals is economically unsound/unsustainable.

The claim of the unsoundness of liberal economics usually focuses on these factors: High amounts of sovereign debt in the world (The USA has 17 trillion dollars of federal government debt, etc. etc.), the failure of Keynesian economics, money that is not backed by a hard asset(s) (Gold or a basket of commodities), high amounts of money printing, the Soviet empire and various Latin American countries having their economies collapsing due to communism/socialism, etc., etc. I really think this irritates Wsacht.

Personally, I would first point out that liberal economists by in large did not predict the 2007/2008 crisis. Second, given the 2007/2008 crisis and the fact that some of the factors that caused it have never been resolved, I think the best approach is to follow the advice given by financial planners and have AT LEAST 6 months of wages saved up in some fashion where the wealth is readily available.

Also, some people believe that another 1930s like depression or worse is around the corner so they would advise having much more saved up and to take other measures such as growing your own food and storing food, etc. etc. I guess time will tell, but this is not impossible. The Western World and the world at large has gone through some periods of economic/political instability from time to time.

For the record, TAR takes the view of hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

3. His staunch Pro Second Ammendment views.

I have asked Karajou to make sure that Wsacht does not mess with TAR's material and create a lot of unnecessary, extra work for TAR due to Wsacht disagreeing with TARs political/economic views. I don't think CP liberals should dictate the ideology at CP so it conforms with liberalism. Conservative 15:31, 5 February 2015 (EST)

Thank you for sharing your concerns in an open candid way, and I will respond with equal candor.
1. We are close to agreement here, but minor editing is necessary to bring some articles up to Manual of Style standards and the category tree structure needs repair.
2. If Cons or TAR want to write essays expressing personal views on survivalism or giving advice, I will defend their right to do so. Similarly, if we take a team approach to writing objective, consensus articles on survivalism, Conservapedia will benefit as well. The conservative movement has a wide spectrum of view as do the survivalists. There are some survivalists who advocate immediate action due to the imminent collapse of Western civilization. Some of these advocate succession of "Cascadia" from the United States, and others advocate an separate all-white nation in the Pacific Northwest. Those views are beyond accepted conservative thought, because conservatives seek to improve society and the social order rather than to destroy it. Articles discussing preparedness for natural disasters or emergencies would help Conservapedia. I assume that they would comply with current Conservapedia policy that does not allow for advertisements or how-to manual articles. So, I think we are very close to an agreement here.
3. The Second Amendment has been a part of the Constitution for 200 years, and I have not seen anyone on Conservapedia attack it. However, materials added to existing articles should be relevant, well-sourced and comply with the Manual of Style. One does not advocate for the Second Amendment by adding a category to every page on Conservapedia. If the person covered by a biography article favors gun rights, then add a sentence to the article preferably with a footnote. Same holds for gun rights opponents. If an article is about a brand of rifle, put "rifle" in the title. If the article is about just ammunition, make that clear as well. If TAR wants to write an article about a gun company, I suggest he use the Wikipedia article on Ithaca Gun Company as a model. I have no objection to TAR moving over a lot of detailed articles providing reference materials on guns, so long as they are accurate and comply with the Manual of Style. I welcome people writing about things that interest them, including guns.
So, I think we are mostly in agreement. Karajou, Cons and I have all advised TAR to focus on writing longer articles rather than just one or two sentences followed by a lot of "See also" links and category lists. I am not objecting to the subjects TAR has chosen, but rather the way TAR adds "See also" and categories into what appear to me to be unrelated articles. Possibly TAR may see a relationship that I can't, but that means that he should add a sentence or paragraph explaining to the reader those implications and relationships.
I would welcome TAR back with the hope that he can clean up his many edits from December and January. Thanks, Wschact 18:21, 5 February 2015 (EST)
TAR was under the impression that category tags generate a good amount of web traffic to articles. I showed him that the category tags effect on web traffic to articles is negligible. So I think the "Battle of the Category Tags" is pretty much over. Conservative 21:15, 5 February 2015 (EST)
Good news! Wschact 21:20, 5 February 2015 (EST)
Also, a former Aussie admin, PhilipRayment, disagreed with Andy about gun control. If memory serves, and it may not, this may have been the final straw that caused Mr. Rayment to stop editing CP and launch his own wiki. Conservative 21:31, 5 February 2015 (EST)
I believe I am agreement with Andy about gun rights/gun control. I understand that there are a number of spin-off wikis running under Media-Wiki software. So, this raises two questions: 1) What can be done to recruit, train and retain competent editors here? 2) How quickly can we repair our wiki so as to avoid being penalized by search engines for our current profile that could be misinterpreted as a link-farm and also to avoid losing credibility with our readers? Thanks, Wschact 21:46, 5 February 2015 (EST)

Merge candidates

Could someone please help me to work off all the Merge candidates?--JoeyJ 12:42, 5 February 2015 (EST)

Since a proper merger would involve merging the change histories, I believe that only an administrator can do it properly. Am I wrong? Thanks, Wschact 13:28, 5 February 2015 (EST)