Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Corrected wrong spelling of file name Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists)
(Weighing in; cleaning the slate)
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 753: Line 753:
:#Coming December 2014, he seemingly loses this piping-ability, and red links start to spread (e.g., [[Cleon Skousen]]). He increases the number of categories he adds to articles, too.
:#Coming December 2014, he seemingly loses this piping-ability, and red links start to spread (e.g., [[Cleon Skousen]]). He increases the number of categories he adds to articles, too.
:It seems that [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] is well aware of the way a wiki works. He shouldn't have a problem to follow the rules and guidelines of Conservapedia. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:37, 17 January 2015 (EST)
:It seems that [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] is well aware of the way a wiki works. He shouldn't have a problem to follow the rules and guidelines of Conservapedia. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:37, 17 January 2015 (EST)
::AugustO, the TAR issues with formatting/coding/harassment at a wiki appear to have been solved or at least largely solved. My apologies for overreacting.
::In recent times, I am usually pretty unflappable and am working on being more unflappable. In addition, I have been spending less time on talk pages and I plan on spending less time on talk pages in the future. In the future, my editing and reading of CP will largely/exclusively be focused on editing the main page and article pages. There is no sense in spending excessive time trying to reason with liberals who tend to be very unreasonable (this is especially true in the political realm).
::I incorporated Karajou's diagram into the manual of style. So some good did come out of this thankfully. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:22, 17 January 2015 (EST)

Revision as of 15:23, 17 January 2015

Comment here

Hi! Thank for for creating this website.

Archive Index


Database Download?

I homeschool my children and they are too young to allow online access. I do use Kiwix (see kiwix.org) though and would like to build a ZIM file of Conservapedia that they can use for research. Does Conservapedia make a database dump of the articles available? Thank you for this wonderful resource! CurtisJ 12:00 PM 24 December 2014 (EDT)


Thanks a lot Mr. Schlafly, I promise to make good use of my new rights. - PetyrB 12:33, 29 June 2014 (EDT)


Andy, you have repeatedly stated that Conservapedia is a meritocracy, and you often rewarded editors by bestowing rights on their accounts. Therefore, I have to ask: has User:PetyrB some merits besides those which are on display here at Conservapedia? Otherwise, the promotion of his account is rather surprising:

  • His account is just a week old. The only other other account which I remember to have risen so quickly, was User:Markman
  • He hasn't made any substantial edit to an article, or started a new article
  • For an observer, his greatest merit seems to be that he agrees with you in everything.

I'm surprised how quickly User:PetyrB picked up the peculiar lingo of Conservapedia, terms like "talk pollution", "last wordism". Do you think he is such a fast learner? I remember the pattern, and I've seen the little atrocities (deleting comments, petty insults) before! Are you interested in repeating history over and over again?

--AugustO 15:28, 1 July 2014 (EDT)

User:PetyrB is another Markman/Bugler. Consider blocking him now. So far my track record is 100% being right when indicating someone is an insincere editor. And I don't expect to see User:PetyrB adding a lot of content to main space articles.
Here are 3 acid tests to consider in the future: 1) Is he/she creating a significant amount of main space article content? If no, this is definitely a red flag. 2) Does the person have an aggressive personality? If so, then they may be trying to get rid of good faith editors. 3) Does the person use language that I use or praise my favorite projects at Conservapedia? If so, the person may be engaged in mirroring in order to quickly gain rapport. Conservative 16:35, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
I think that you two are overreacting. AugusO, you talk as if Andy has officially made me his second in command. In reality, the promotion I have been granted is rather modest. He has given me blocking rights and Skipcaptcha. That's it. You stated that I "hasn't made any substantial edit to an article, or started a new article". I don't see why this is relevant for me to have block rights, you don't need to write any article in order to properly block a spammer, a vandal or someone with an inappropriate username. As far as I gather, Andy has given me blocking rights for my work in reverting vandalism, not for any edits I have made.
User:Conservaitve wrote "User:PetyrB is another Markman/Bugler." How exactly did you reach this conclusion? I have lurked for some time on Conservapedia, and I'm aware that there are some mischievous vandals who try to insert parody into our wiki. Why do you think I'm one of them? Do you find hints of parody in any of the edits I have made so far?
Anyhow, the reason why I came to CP is to contribute, not to be endowed with blocking rights. Should Andy revoke my blocking rights, it would not cause me any grief (although I do want to retain the Skipcaptcha, it is helpful when editing). I just hope that this exchange of ours will soon forgotten and that our next interactions on this website will be more cordial. - PetyrB 16:54, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
PetyrB, please feel free to prove me wrong by creating a significant amount of new main space content.Conservative 19:11, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
Creating more content for CP is why I registered here. It will take me some time to reach impressive achievements since I'm relatively inexperienced at wiki-editing, but I hope that within a few months at the most I'll be able to show you that I mean well. - PetyrB 15:02, 2 July 2014 (EDT)

Based on IP address research that Karajou just performed, the evidence is pointing to PetyrB being user Markman/Markoman. Conservative 16:39, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

Andy, PetyrB went on a spree to replace every occurrence of "Son of Man" by your "translation". I tried to undo these edits, as I think that the last word on this matter shouldn't be written by someone like him. --AugustO 17:27, 23 July 2014 (EDT)

George H. W. Bush

Are George H. W. Bush and Mike Crapo Conservatives or RINOs?--JoeyJ 05:16, 5 July 2014 (EDT)

George H. W. Bush was a RINO. I don't know enough about Mike Crapo to say.--Andy Schlafly 10:44, 5 July 2014 (EDT)
There was a place in my heart for Bush until he "chucked aside my free market principles" and he came out in support of the banking bailout. Nowadays, I call him George "I chucked my principles" Bush. Without principles, you're not a man at all. PeterKa 22:51, 5 July 2014 (EDT)

I suggest banning the parodist JamesWilson

I suggest banning the parodist JamesWilson or at the very least stripping him of his block rights.

JamesWilson just gave a bizarre definition of fornication. Namely, he claims fornication includes sex within marriage not intended for procreation.[1] Setting aside the morality of sex inside of marriage not intended for procreation, this is certainly not fornication. Merriam-Webster, for example, defines fornication as "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other".[2]

Secondly, he indicated on PetyrB's talk page that he wanted to have private email communications with him when I challenged PetyrB on being Markman the parodist. No doubt to give him suggestions on how to avoid detection as far as being a parodist.

Thirdly, correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that JamesWilson's biggest "contributions" are to Elvis/Little Richard, etc. articles.

Fourthly, he has a penchant of attempting to curry favor with you which was a trait of Bugler, Markman, etc.

Fifthly, I have always suspected JamesWilson to be a parodist and so far my accuracy is 100%. Conservative 15:49, 8 July 2014 (EDT)

I saw that Conservative deleted and salted JamesWilson's user and user talk pages. However, he neglected to block the account. I don't know whether this was an oversight or an intentional decision. GregG 20:04, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
积水之激,至于漂石者,势也。鸷鸟之疾,至于毁折者,节也。 Conservative 21:36, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
I don't understand what you are saying (even with Google translate). Following the Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages will help in effective communication on this project. Thanks, GregG 21:41, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
  • As of 05:16, 9 July 2014, JamesWilson has blocked himself. If he can block himself, can he unblock himself? This is getting curiouser and curiouser. PeterKa 01:40, 9 July 2014 (EDT)
He decided to get a new hobby because his days of being a parodist were effectively over. Conservative 02:08, 9 July 2014 (EDT)

Conservative, given that your accuracy is 100%, what do you think of User:Historybuff? For me, he takes great efforts to sound like a sock of yours! Would you take action? --AugustO 17:14, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

Tea Party Crusaders displays scammy advertisements

I was visiting the article "The country with second highest amount of abortions in the world decides to impose fines on abortions. Guess which country" on Tea Party Crusaders, linked on our front page. On the right side, there is a scammy advertisement simulating user interface elements, stating "Media content may not display properly. Download a new video content player now. Your system may not be able to play all media content and services available. Install new windows compatible software now." (For the record, my operating is Ubuntu 14.04). I have a screenshot that is available, but I cannot upload images to Conservapedia. I wonder whether Conservapedia should link to sites carrying advertisements that could significantly harm our readers. Many thanks, GregG 20:18, 8 July 2014 (EDT)

GregG, please spare us your liberal hysterics. Conservative 21:25, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
I don't see web security as a partisan issue. Another advertisement I found imitated the Facebook mobile interface with a flashing notifications icon. Clicking the advertisement leads to a survey scam (also using Facebook's trade dress). GregG 21:46, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
GregG, I am not going to wrestle in the internet mud with an unreasonable liberal. You have cried wolf too many times before concerning your various petulant complaints. Game over. Conservative 21:57, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
Thank you for your input, Conservative. I will leave the resolution of this issue to Mr. Schlafly (screenshots are also available upon request). GregG 22:15, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
Against my better judgement, I investigated your complaint using an Opera browser with no advertisement blocker or other types of blocking on the Opera browser and it was a total waste of time. Please stop wasting my time. Conservative 22:27, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
If you have an e-mail address, I can send you the screenshots I took. Note that the scammy advertisements do not appear on every page load. GregG 22:30, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
The AppNexus network delivered the advertisements I mentioned above. There are other ad networks on TPC. GregG 22:35, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
You want my email address so you can pesterfest me about nothing at will and waste more of my time whenever you desire. Gehenna will freeze over before that happens. Conservative 22:39, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
  • The main Tea Party site is the Tea Party News Network. Tea Party Crusaders is a rather obscure site to be getting so much material from. PeterKa 02:11, 9 July 2014 (EDT)
Alexa ranks the Tea Party Crusaders website about 83,000 in the United States and I like a number of the stories they choose to cover. For example, they recently ran a number of: pro-life stories, Christian stories, anti-Obama stories, a godless Britain story, anti-atheism/evolution stories, pro-gun rights stories, anti-liberal stories, etc. They also chose to run a Christian athlete story recently.
Unlike many Tea Party websites, they have a strong emphasis on the social issues. Conservative 02:42, 9 July 2014 (EDT)

Here's another probably-fraudulent advertisement I found on TPC tonight: it states "CONGRATULATIONS! THIS IS NOT A JOKE! YOU ARE THE 100.000th VISITOR! Click here" (with the "click here" line in rapidly flashing black and white text). Clicking the advertisement leads to a "free product" scam, notable for requiring significant expense to obtain a nominally-free product (I will not make the obvious political comparison), one of which is a "$500 Unemployment Check", it also includes probably-fraudulent statements that there are only 5 or 6 products left, as well as testimonials of unknown provenance. Screenshots are available upon request. GregG 21:32, 7 August 2014 (EDT)

Another ad I found this morning is an imitation of a browser plugin notification stating "This content requires Java 12.3. Would you like to install now?" In fact, there is no version 12.3 of Java. Clicking the advertisement links to a page promoting a video playing application, which, in turn, pops up a fake Windows Vista/Windows 7 dialog stating "Your [software] Download is ready!" Screenshots are available upon request. GregG 10:02, 8 August 2014 (EDT)

Is User:CraigF2 a parodist?

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I recently saw some edits of User:CraigF2. This one in particular makes me believe that the user is a parodist, though I would like a second opinion. Thanks, GregG 21:22, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

Your reversion was appropriate, and I don't disagree with your analysis.--Andy Schlafly 21:25, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
After reading User:CraigF2's user page recently, I said to myself this editor is probably an atheist posing as a Christian conservative. GregG's pointing out of this recent edit of his, greatly reinforces my suspicion and has cemented it in. Like JamesWilson, CraigF2's parodist career is effectively over as he has been spotted. I am emailing Karajou now. I think it is time for CraigF2 to develop a new hobby to replace his Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder. Conservative 23:16, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

Please unprotect my talk page

It was protected by User:Conservative without explanation. Many thanks, GregG 22:21, 19 July 2014 (EDT)

UPDATE: the page has been unprotected, but it is still troubling that an admin protected another user's user talk page without that user's request. Hopefully steps will be taken to ensure that a similar abuse of tools does not recur. GregG 22:32, 19 July 2014 (EDT)

Animation article and Brian34

You might want to lock the Animation page as it seems the socks of Brian34 et.al. are trying to create a revert war. I suggest you look into this issue. OraceHay 21:13, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

Common Core

Hi there, should a special article be written on Common Core that isn't an essay? I'm asking for approval before I start. Thank you.

(Oh, and thanks for giving me blocking rights!) Atum 17:28, 22 July 2014 (EDT)

Yes, a regular entry on Common Core would be great! Thanks in advance for starting one.--Andy Schlafly 17:36, 22 July 2014 (EDT)

Republican Politicians

Hello there. I said this in an edit summary, but should something be done about the pages for Conservative and Liberal figures? There are all of these pages that are being ridiculously elaborated upon, such as Atheism, yet for some political figures, they're just a few lines long. Anything I need to do about this, as if it's Conservapedia, it's pretty important to know about the politicians. Thank you. Atum 12:33, 26 July 2014 (EDT)

More development of the entries about political figures would be terrific!--Andy Schlafly 12:41, 26 July 2014 (EDT)
P.S. But politicians tend to be followers of culture and ideas, rather than leaders. The term "political leader" is a bit of an oxymoron.--Andy Schlafly 12:42, 26 July 2014 (EDT)
Talking of political leaders Andy, what is your opinion on Marco Rubio? He seems to be the leading candidate for the Republican 2016 election at this early stage. He has a lot going for him, his youth will appeal to younger voters and whilst no RINO, he seems more moderate than some so could pull the undecided or swing voters who would not back some other choices. He seems like a good option to me.--ColinP 15:16, 26 July 2014 (EDT)
Marco Rubio was brought from obscurity by conservatives and elected by them. But after he was elected, he made the mistake of thinking he had a brighter future with moderates and RINOs. It's doubtful he can regain the conservative support he had previously.--Andy Schlafly 21:07, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

Orwellian changes of Conservapedia's history

Conservapedia proven right shows numerous examples of predictions made by Conservapedia which became true. What happens when there is a prediction - prominently on display and repeatedly made - which doesn't become reality?

In 2012/2013, we read on the main page of Conservapedia news-items like the following:

50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released

Feb 15, 2012

A Question evolution! campaign group now has 3 writers and at least 3 Question Evolution! booklets/books will be coming out. Some of the booklets/books will be designed for young people.

May 1, 2012

A 15 questions for evolutionists booklet and book for middle school students will soon be coming out and they are going to be heavily promoted and distributed.

Jun 19,2012

SS Evolution! passengers get on your life jackets! A barrage of 100+ page Question evolution! campaign booklet torpedoes is headed your way!

Sep 19, 2012

The Question evolution! book for middle school students, edited by a Christian apologist, gains in popularity.

Jul 11, 2013

Canadian teacher at a Christian school will be serving as a science editor of the Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students.

Jul 18, 2013

And many more...

Two and a half years later, this book hasn't been published. This is a prediction boldly made by Conservapedia on its main page (without any qualifiers) which just was wrong. But instead of owning up to it, gritting your teeth and admitting that such things happen, another way was chosen: I had to link to the news-items using the internet archive, as every mentioning of this book was erased from the history of the main page and even from discussions on the archives of the main talk page! Though the "book for the middle school" was announced (according to my memory at least) on many talk-pages, User talk pages and even articles, now, you just find deleted revisions.

This reminds me of the erasure of Leon Trotsky from all documents and even photographs in the Soviet Union! But alas, such an attempt to change history will always be incomplete, and thereby counterproductive: How do you reply to someone who says "Obviously they are right at Conservapedia proven right, but that is not surprising, as they erase all the cases when they are wrong."

I'm aware that you, Andy, probably won't react to this problem - and I'm afraid that this is something your sysops count on. As User:Conservative said in another deleted revision to User:GregG:

GregG, if you have any concerns or complaints about this matter, I/we would recommend that you take them to the owner of the website godspeed. I/we predict that you will get the "Schlafly ignore" - AGAIN!

Conservative 14:14, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AugustO (talk)

AugustO, evolutionists claim that truly astounding things can happen given enough time. Why do you doubt the cited news stories you indicated were on the main page? It has only been 2 1/2 years according to you. Conservative 19:51, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

Sorry, missed my signature - I - User:AugustO wrote the text above. --AugustO 19:55, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
  • I don't doubt that the stories once could be read on the main page, and that these stories were discussed on various talk-pages, though great efforts were taken to make every mentioning of the booklet disappear.
  • Could you please try for once to stand by your announcements and your actions? Did you mean by soon
  1. in a million of years
  2. in a couple of years
  3. soon
  • No Sun-Tzu, no weaseling, no I call you back, but I'm very busy now, no you don't know who of my split persona made these announcements. Please, please, please, talk the talk AND walk the walk. --AugustO 09:42, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

While you're waiting for a little booklet, how about a task from you, AugustO: prove evolution to be a fact using empirical evidence. What I have seen during the past few years is a deliberate attempt by critics to kill the message by killing the messenger. So what if a mere booklet cannot be produced; they've been trying to shut up Conservative since before this website was created, and they don't care that evidence has been presented which shows them to be completely and totally wrong (am I correct in saying that, Horace?). So here's the thing: if anyone does not like what we are saying about evolution; if anyone does not like what we are proving about evolution; if anyone does not like the fact that we are supporting GOD and His creation according to the Bible, that is just too bad. Karajou 12:26, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

  • Thank you, Karajou, for taking an interest in this exchange! I think that it is very important that the older and more experienced administrators share their experience with the younger ones, who - like Conservative - are high-school students, but nevertheless have quite a bit of responsibility here at Conservapedia. I've said it before: I think that it is a good idea to make pupils an integral part of the administration of this website BUT these pupils shouldn't be left alone; they should be guided by Andy and others.
  • Normally, the (non-)existence of a "mere" booklet is a non-event, but during 2012 and 2013, there was no other item of news more extensively covered at the main-page than this "Question Evolution! campaign booklet" and the "Project 200+" - so, not I'm the one who blew this thing out of proportion!
  • And then, suddenly, it became taboo, the histories of pages were deleted and even archives containing announcements for the booklet were altered, creating the impression (at least here at Conservapedia), that no one has ever heard of this book. This is absurd!
  • I hope that you agree that such an act of apparent censorship doesn't help to maintain idea of a "trustworthy encyclopedia"!
  • A minor may think that it is a brilliant tactic to yell "just kidding" when an elaborate stunt has misfired, and to sweep any evidence under the carpet. I think it is the task of those to whom he is looking up, not to indulge him and to discourage such a behavior, as it is unbecoming for an adult.
  • I'm not trying to shut Conservative up, but I criticize some of his actions. And taking responsibility for your actions (and not hiding behind Chinese quotes, or a sudden influx of work...) is an important lesson in the school of life.
--AugustO 13:33, 2 August 2014 (EDT)
AugustO, in 2013, Conservapedia reported on an announcement(s) made on another web property that indicated an event would happen "soon" as you indicated above. You also indicated that you don't know when "soon" is. I realize that immature people are often impatient. Aren't you making a tempest in a teapot? Conservative 17:43, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

AugustO, the root of your problem is that you cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions of the Question evolution! campaign and it upsets you. Prominent evolutionists have indicated that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary paradigm. [3] Of course, this means that the Question evolution! campaign stumped evolutionists with its very first question! Conservative 18:25, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

  1. The news item doesn't read "Some obscure blog made announced that a Question Evolution! campaign booklet for middle school pupils will be published soon". In fact it reads like any other prediction in Conservapedia proven right.
  2. Do you think that any reader of these news-items has read "soon" meaning anything other but "in the near future", or worst "in a couple of months time"? If you wanted to indicate with "soon" "during the next few millenia", the whole situation gets worse: you were misleading your readers! Please take a look at the upper left corner: "CONSERVAPEDIA - THE TRUSTWORTHY ENCYCLOPEDIA".
  3. When you flooded the main-page with announcements about this booklet, you created the tempest. Please, don't try to deflect from this fact.
  4. What do you think of User:Historybuff? Please take a look at #I suggest banning the parodist JamesWilson. I hope that you prove immune against flattering edits!
I don't think that one should encourage weaseling. Sadly, Conservative's comment above is an example of evading responsibility, and not taking responsibility.
--AugustO 18:22, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

AugustO, you had an opportunity to go up against the biology major VivaYehshua in an audio recorded debate relative to the 15 questions for evolutionists that would have been broadcast by the popular YouTube Christian channel Shockofgod with over 20,000 subscribers. You wimped out. Your comment about "evading" rings rather hollow.

AugustO, if only you had taken up the debate offer. Then you would be taken more seriously. Conservative 01:10, 3 August 2014 (EDT)

Even if I were the biggest wimp in the universe, I'd still see that you didn't address any of the points #1 - #4 above. Such an action is known as changing the topic or evading the question. --AugustO 02:34, 3 August 2014 (EDT)

Sissel upheld by D.C. Cir.

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I wonder how the D.C. Circuit's recent upholding of the dismissal in Sissel v. HHS is going to affect Hotze. Also, I found a website hosting the briefs in Hotze online, so I was wondering how to go about writing a comprehensive Conservapedia article on the case (as well as, if copyright law permits, hosting the full text of the briefs on Conservapedia). Thanks, GregG 21:49, 29 July 2014 (EDT)

Great comment, Greg. The Sissel decision ruled on the Origination Clause, but did not address all of the arguments on that Clause that have been presented in the Hotze case. Maybe I can write and post an analysis.
As to briefs, I'm not sure what (if any) copyright issues exist. Presumably as long as you give credit, the doctrine of fair use would apply.--Andy Schlafly 22:14, 29 July 2014 (EDT)

The latest Obama attack on arbitration

Here. Perhaps it can be featured on our main page. Thanks, GregG 20:16, 30 July 2014 (EDT)

That is an interesting erosion of arbitration! "The president's order will also prohibit companies pursuing government contracts from requiring their workers to agree upfront to mandatory arbitration ...," your link explains.--Andy Schlafly 23:59, 30 July 2014 (EDT)

Blacklisted word

I can understand why the word "b*tcoin" may be associated with spammers, and needs to be blacklisted. However, I justed edited Wikimedia Foundation and could not save my edit until I replaced the i with an asterisk. Could an admin please go back and correct the spelling? If necessary, suspend the blacklist for a minute. Many thanks, Wschact 01:08, 9 August 2014 (EDT)

On further thought, perhaps "b*tcoin" should be removed from the blacklist. If it were, I would add Seth Meyer's comment to the Reliability section of the main Wikipedia article and start a separate article on b*tcoin. It is important to understand the conservative perspective on alternative currencies: 1) a large part of our nation's international influence comes from the role of the US dollar as the currency of international trade, and 2) alternative currencies are used by criminals, such as Russian identity theft rings and international drug cartels to evade law enforcement. B*tcoin is designed to evade law enforcement, and it undercuts our nation's international influence. Thanks, Wschact 11:42, 9 August 2014 (EDT)
I know that folks are very busy, but I am uncomfortable with the letter i being replaced by an asterisk. Could I please get some assistance on this matter. Many thanks. Wschact 07:59, 11 August 2014 (EDT)
It should be updated as requested. Thanks for your patience.--Andy Schlafly 17:47, 11 August 2014 (EDT)
I have now corrected the spelling in Wikimedia Foundation and added the Seth Meyers' quote to Wikipedia. May I start the bitcoin article as outlined above, or is that a sensitive subject that should be left to a more experienced editor? Many thanks, Wschact 19:05, 22 August 2014 (EDT)
An encyclopedic, lawful article about bitcoin would be fine.--Andy Schlafly 15:01, 23 August 2014 (EDT)

Conservapedia cited in a prestigious book against atheism

On occasion, I butted heads with Roman Catholic, theistic evolutionist editors such as GregG, TK and NKeaton.

I just found out that John J. Pasquini, Th.D., a Roman Catholic priest and scholar, cited my Conservapedia atheism articles three times in his book Atheist Persona: Causes and Consequences (the book has 77 footnotes and cites Conservapedia atheism articles in footnotes 34, 64 and 67).[4] The book was favorably reviewed by Michael Behe (a leading proponent of intelligent design theory), Paul Vitz and Michael Egnor (also a proponent of intelligent design) and was published by the academic publisher University Press of America.[5]

The book only cited the Encyclopedia Britannica once. :) Conservative 14:10, 23 August 2014 (EDT)

Very good achievement!--Andy Schlafly 15:02, 23 August 2014 (EDT)
I read the beginning of the book and its table of contents and he appeared to gain a significant amount of his information from the Conservapedia atheism article. Conservative 15:34, 23 August 2014 (EDT)

Constitution course and state constitutions

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Have you considered a comparative discussion of state constitutions, either as part of the Constitution course or as a separate course. I think it would be really interesting for students to contrast state constitutions with each other and with the federal Constitution. GregG 14:00, 30 August 2014 (EDT)

A great suggestion, Greg, but state constitutions are not really in the same league as the U.S. Constitution in eloquence, brevity, or tremendous design. It would be like teaching a course about the Mona Lisa along with ... ordinary art. Maybe the contrast would be edifying.--Andy Schlafly 14:24, 30 August 2014 (EDT)
I think someone could offer a college level course of "Constitutions and the political process." State Constitutions serve a much more political role than the Federal Constitution because they are easier to amend and the voters only look at them when they are up for amendment. A good example is Virginia. In 2010 over 80% of the voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing a real property tax exemption for the principle residence of service members with a 100% disability. Politicians favored it because it allowed the state legislators to demonstrate that they are pro-veteran. However, this begs the question as to why the Virginia Constitution is so rigid in its overall treatment of real property tax assessment. (Answer: they don't trust the county-based tax assessors.) So, as soon as the amendment past, people started to ask why there is no exemption for the surviving spouse of a service member killed-in-action? (After all, a dead service member is more than 100% disabled.) So, on the 2014 ballot we will vote on a second very narrow constitutional amendment. This gives politicians a second chance to show that they are pro-veteran. Maybe in 2018 we can do an amendment for veterans currently enrolled in college under the GI-Bill? Wschact 01:08, 31 August 2014 (EDT)

Scam ads, CNAV edition

I was viewing a CNAV article, and an ad appeared stating "Update Your Video Plugin [triangle pointing right]: See & Download Your Favorite Videos With [Name of Software] It's Free [checkmark]". Clicking the ad leads to a fake dialog box (in the style of Windows Vista) with title bar "Required Update", dialog title "Recommended Update", and text "The latest version of New Player [note: not the name of software in the ad] with critical security fixes is ready to install now / It wouldn't take too long to upgrade - and you'll get all the latest improvements and fixes." Screenshots available on request. GregG 21:35, 1 September 2014 (EDT)

Another advertisement for what appears to be the same product has the heading "(4) New Plugin Update !" and a fake title bar, minimize and close buttons, and mouse cursor moving through the ad. GregG 21:36, 1 September 2014 (EDT)

Another advertisement I found has the text "COME CLOSE to YOUR RUSSIAN AFFAIR"; no further comment needed. GregG 21:39, 1 September 2014 (EDT)

Meanwhile, on TPC I found headlines in the RevContent sponsored content plugin reading "Hottest Actresses That Bare It All", "Celebs Who Flash More than Their Winning", "Sexiest Celebrity Boobs in Hollywood", and "The Best Bodies on REEF Girls Ever" (the last has a picture of women with extremely skimpy underwear. GregG 22:02, 1 September 2014 (EDT)

There are no ads on this website, and this website has no control over off-site ads. But your criticism has been forwarded and I've since been told the off-site ads will improve. Thanks for mentioning this.--Andy Schlafly 21:36, 2 September 2014 (EDT)
Thank you very much for looking into this (as well as for continuing to financially and otherwise support this widely-known project without commercial advertisement or pledge drives). I am hopeful that Conservapedia's name can convince news sites that Conservapedia frequently promotes to take steps to ensure all their ads are high quality. GregG 19:59, 3 September 2014 (EDT)


Thank you for expanding my rights.--JoeyJ 16:03, 20 September 2014 (EDT)

Your account promotion was well-deserved!--Andy Schlafly 18:45, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Bariatric science

Conservapedia ranks in the Google USA top 10 for the search Bariatric science as can be seen HERE. Conservapedia: one of the premier web resources for the topic of bariatric science! :) Conservative 16:38, 27 September 2014 (EDT)


He and I are having a little argument (see my talk page) over whether he has blocking rights. Did you neglect to congratulate him? SamHB 01:38, 28 September 2014 (EDT)

A request

First, thank you for letting me contribute to the Constitution lectures.

Second, I recently came across this trailer for an upcoming film made by one of the principal attackers of arbitration, which from viewing the trailer, is likely to be little more than disparagement of arbitration based on outdated anecdotes and mischaracterizations of arbitration. Given your skill in publicizing Conservapedia, I was hoping that we could write and publicize a rebuttal to the film once it becomes publicly available. (I think something like this would be what we're after.)

Many thanks,

GregG 22:52, 2 October 2014 (EDT)

Greg, your contributions to the Constitution lectures are superb! Thank you.
I'd be very interested in seeing and reviewing a film against arbitration. I would not think the issue lends itself well to the silver screen.--Andy Schlafly 09:47, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

Latin, Hebrew, etc.

Thanks for your response and suggestion on the questions page. Unfortunately, I don't exactly know how to "copy from elsewhere". Do you mean "elsewhere on Conservapedia"? Please answer on my Talk page. Thanks. --Dataclarifier 12:39, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

Copyright and patent clause

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I saw that you corrected the citation for the copyright and patent clause in Lecture Two; however, you neglected to change the clause number in the succeeding explanation. Thanks, GregG 19:36, 5 October 2014 (EDT)

Great catch! Corrected the error.--Andy Schlafly 00:12, 6 October 2014 (EDT)

Please unprotect Quote mining

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Could you please unprotect Quote mining? My arbitration research found an example of Peter Rutledge being quoted out of context by liberals; his rebuttal is found here. Thanks, GregG 19:23, 31 October 2014 (EDT)

GregG, add the example to Quoting out of context. Problem solved. Conservative 20:06, 31 October 2014 (EDT)


I was wondering if you could tell me if there is some kind of time restriction on editing. I work shifts, and this month I'll be up overnight. I was wondering if I could get access to edit throughout the night. Thanks for your help DevilDog 00:21, 16 December 2014 (EST)

Question about picture uploading rights

Can picture uploading rights be given without making someone an Admin/Sysop? Can MediaWki do this? Conservative 23:41, 18 December 2014 (EST)

Yes.--Andy Schlafly 23:48, 18 December 2014 (EST)

Holy Ghost

Andy, I just had hoped that you had stopped applying your unique idea of translating to the Bible, but you seem to be relentless. In the Gospel of Luke, you are using now "Holy Ghost", "Holy Spirit", "Divine Force", "Spirit of God", "Divine Guidance", "Force of God" for the Greek πνεῦμα - and it is not always clear for the reader of the "translation" which of these phrases refer to the same entity. --AugustO 09:40, 21 December 2014 (EST)


--AugustO 09:52, 21 December 2014 (EST)

I have responded at: Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Two_millionth_page_view_for_the_.22Counterexamples_to_Relativity.22_page.--Andy Schlafly 20:35, 21 December 2014 (EST)
Your response was:
"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."
We don't discard Foucault pendulum because it is 150 years old and was performed using a piece of string and a piece of lead. No, it is repeated over and over again. Same is true for Cockcroft and Walton: this experiment is performed routinely in courses on modern physics, using modern technology. But if you wish for some state-of-the-art experiment, take a look at World Year of Physics: A direct test of E=mc²...
And you didn't respond to the second or the thrid point. --AugustO 02:19, 22 December 2014 (EST)
But neither Cockcroft, Walton, nor the Noble committee claimed that the experiment demonstrated anything about E=mc2. And the citation to Nature magazine for a supposed physics breakthrough? Please. Nature is not a top-tier physics journal. It's popularized science, which is all that the silly E=mc2 formula is.--Andy Schlafly 09:23, 22 December 2014 (EST)
That's just hand-waving! Please answer the question at A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton - I think they are educational, and will help everybody's understanding of the subject.
--AugustO 08:40, 28 December 2014 (EST)

I removed the blatantly false statement The claims of mass-energy equivalence have not been replicated with more advanced modern technology. Before you edit the article on Cockcroft and Walton Experiment again, you should show your knowledge by answering A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton! --AugustO 02:39, 7 January 2015 (EST)


I put this notice on several active editors talk pages:

Would you 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 go to: The collaborative project. Conservative 21:58, 25 December 2014 (EST)

quick note

A conservative website that is an Alexa USA top 70,000 is looking for content and so they are featuring some of Conservapedia's most popular articles as far as the first 300 words and then they are providing a link to the Conservapedia article. Conservative 22:13, 29 December 2014 (EST)


Hello Mr. Aschlafly, I would like to discuss my ban (6ebeast), specifically why I was banned. (WashingtonLincoln 18:58, 31 December 2014 (EST))

Ayurvedic medicine

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)

Technical hint: If you read edit conflict, by going on without checking for it you will delete someone else's comment. --AugustO 07:02, 3 January 2015 (EST)

Andy, we await your guidance on this important issue. Many thanks, Wschact 00:22, 4 January 2015 (EST)

The National Institute of Health website has two introductory articles on this topic HERE and HERE.
No matter what health treatment you choose for an ailment, it is best to take a caveat emptor (Let the buyer beware) approach and do your due diligence. There are plenty of quacks/frauds/incompetents in all branches of medicine/health care (My doctor called out another doctor for his fraudulent study in front of other doctors and this ruffled some feathers. Fraud is rampant in medicine). You have to weigh the benefits/costs of any treatment/provider and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island character Long John Silver said, "Doctors is all swabs...".  :) Medicine is still a science/art. That is why they say doctors practice medicine.  :)Conservative 01:21, 4 January 2015 (EST)

The history of science shows many examples where the medical science community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, bloodletting was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.[6] In his essay, A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready? , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy."(A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready? , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.).

In a 1991 BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, David Eddy professor of health policy and management at Duke University, told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."[7] Conservative 01:39, 4 January 2015 (EST)

Out of curiosity, I did a bit of research on the life expectancies of the populations USA, China and Japan. I am guessing in China that traditional Chinese medicine is used a lot based on past conversations with my Chinese friends, but they also use Western medicine too. A National Institute Health (NIH) article by Nobutaka Suzuki indicates: "The situation in Japan should be of much interest, since Japan is unique as a country in which highly advanced modern Western medicine coexists with traditional Asian medicine."[8]
The life expectancy of the USA is about 78 years. The life expectancy in China is not much different and is about 75 years. The Japanese are more health conscious than both China/USA and their life expectancy is about 83 years (Preventative medicine is still by far the best medicine. Too many Western doctors are overweight and provide a poor example to their patients). Conservative 02:19, 4 January 2015 (EST)

Our mutual goal is for everyone to live a healthy and happy life. Our CP community is working toward that goal by providing reliable information to people in the form of an on-line encyclopedia. Every family faces health challenges, and when someone in my family needs health care, we turn to Western medicine. I do not provide medical advice, but with several doctors and RNs in my extended family, there is no shortage of Western medicine expertise in my family. With that background, I wish to respond to the above points. I agree that Western medicine has its deficiencies, doctors can misdiagnose patients, and cures are not guaranteed. However, there are serious issues with Ayurvedic medicine and much of it has not been proven by controlled clinical trials.

A dedicated group of volunteers have written articles and a hierarchy of categories at a level suitable for a homeschooled high school student on a wide variety of subjects. Some scientific subjects may be tangentially related to Ayurvedic medicine. Putting a "see also" or Ayurvedic medicine category reference on all such tangential articles puts CP in the position of promoting Ayurvedic medicine over western medicine. CP would never add "See also Anacin" to the article on headache because we don't do advertising here, and most CP editors do not have the expertise to recommend Anacin over other headache cures. Wikipedia has the following legal disclaimer:

"Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date. The overwhelming majority of such articles are written, in part or in whole, by nonprofessionals. Even if a statement made about medicine is accurate, it may not apply to you or your symptoms.
"The medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional (for instance, a qualified doctor/physician, nurse, pharmacist/chemist, and so on). Wikipedia is not a doctor."[1] Wikipedia also has special rules as to what sources can be used in a medical article there.

We should not give undue weight to Ayurvedic medicine on CP. I can understand having a half dozen articles on the subject which contain objective descriptions of the theory and treatment approaches, but homeschooled students should be able to read an article about a human body part without being steered toward Ayurvedic medicine over Western medicine. I think that the Mayo Clinic is one of the best hospitals in America, but I should not be allowed to add "See also Mayo Clinic" to every article about a disease.

What is the cost or risk of promoting Ayurvedic medicine on CP? Well, if a user follows our advice and uses an Ayurvedic medicine treatment instead of a Western treatment, there is the potential of tort liability. As a secondary matter, if CP comes across as a Ayurvedic medicine spam site, we will lose readers and credibility as an encyclopedia. Finally, if the Ayurvedic medicine articles are copy and pasted from copyrighted websites, there is copyright liability.

I don't have the time or expertise to supervise the expansion of CP into the realm of Ayurvedic medicine and I question whether User:Aschlafly or User:Conservative have the time or expertise either. There is so much that we can do as the best of the public to serve our readers in our current scope that I recommend that we retain our current focus. But I understand that this is a big decision that is above my pay grade and I await Andy's decision. Many thanks! Wschact 04:13, 4 January 2015 (EST)

My two cents and then I will bow out of the conversation: When it come to health care choices, the three most important criteria are efficacy (cure rate, time to cure, etc.), toxicity/side effects and price. Because of this, there is often no one size fits all in terms of treatment. Why? Because some people are bigger risk takers and will push the efficacy envelope despite increased risks (for example, Excedrin is stronger and works faster than Tylenol but it also has more side effects). Also, some people cannot afford the very best treatments but wealthy people can go to the very best in their specialty and even travel to do so. Conservative 05:58, 4 January 2015 (EST)
Thank you for the reply. Please clarify whether you are willing to mentor User:TheAmericanRedoubt and check that he does an objective job adding Ayurvedic medicine to articles without copy and pasting from other websites. Many thanks. Wschact 09:27, 4 January 2015 (EST)
I truly appreciate both of your thoughtful and detailed replies to User_talk:Aschlafly#Response_to_User:Wschact_and_User:AugustO_Regarding_Ayurvedic_-_Chinese_-_Western_Herbal_Medicine_on_Conservapedia.
User:Wschact, don't worry, I promise you I will not make the CPP site a big advertisement for Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine. Regarding your Tort law concerns, that is why I created Template:Medical_Notice. Regarding the number of proposed articles on Ayurvedic herbs, it is because many of them are also commonly used in Western herbology so are quite familiar to Westerners such as turmeric, ginger, cardamom, garlic, cloves, cinnamon, etc.
Speaking of the Mayo Clinic that you mentioned, that renowned and respected clinic has found in their research, according to my M.D. colleague I work with, that taking a particular daily 3x dosage of turmeric is as effective as the leading anti-arthritic pharmaceutical in treating certain types of arthritis, yet without any side effects. TheAmericanRedoubt 13:21, 4 January 2015 (EST)

Dear Andy: We are still awaiting your judgment on Conservapedia's approach to alternative medicine in general and Ayurvedic medicine in particular. We also need your views on {{Medical Notice}}. Many thanks! Wschact 13:08, 8 January 2015 (EST)

User:Conservative's sock(s)

I understand that some administrators have various accounts for obvious reasons (e.g., User:Joaquín Martínez and his dummy User:JMR10), and I'm fine with it - it is for the sake of the project.

But User:Conservative created a sock-puppet account User:Historybuff without being honest about it: its whole raison d'être was to appear as an independent agent in a discussion at Talk:Conservapedia proven wrong and to agree with User:Conservative's position (see http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservapedia_proven_wrong&oldid=1096931 ).

You don't have to trust how I reasoned three months later that User:Historybuff was indeed a sock of User:Conservative (see Talk:Main_Page#.C3.80_propos_resolutions_and_announcements) - I request that you use checkuser to verify this accusation.

I'm disappointed that an administrator uses sock(s) to deceive fellow editors, and I think that User:Conservative's behavior while discussing this sordid affair is even worse: while the Conservapedia:Guidelines clearly state that Conservapedia does not allow "sockpuppet" accounts or unaccountable anonymous proxy use., he claims that his actions are covered by a remark at Conservapedia:Sockpuppet (Some Administrators may use Sockpuppets occasionally or Single Purpose Accounts. ). This remark was introduced to the article by a now disgraced editor (User:RobSmith) without any discussion - and I doubt that even he meant to cover the use of socks in such a misleading way...

I'd ask you to make it clear that you don't approve the use of sock puppets - even for administrators - if these sockpuppets are there to pretend to be other, independent persons.

I really appreciate an answer of you on this topic --AugustO 06:57, 3 January 2015 (EST)

AugustO, you offered up a dead link as evidence of something. Before you engage in wiki lawyering, first get your ducks in a row!
A conservative wiki doesn't operate on mob rule/groupthink/consensus. This wiki is not Wikipedia. Why would the User: Conservative account feel a need to get someone to publicly agree with a position? Liberals are fond of the bandwagon fallacy, not conservatives! And if the User: Conservative account consists of more than one editor, then why would the User: Conservative account need to show another person agreeing about a matter?
AugustO, the edit made through the historybuff account clearly rattled you in some way. It's time to compose yourself. Conservative 07:54, 3 January 2015 (EST)
Sigh. I linked to a now deleted revision. Andy and you both are able to retrieve the content. Here, for your convenience, the contributions of User:Historybuff to the page Talk:Conservapedia proven wrong:
October 26, 2012

The October 26, 2014 event was described as a clandestine event by a creationist blog and subsequently reported by Conservapedia as a news event.[9] Why would we expect the mainstream news media and other media outlets to report on a clandestine event? Historians don't use the absence of evidence as evidence of absence in terms of events occurring or not occurring in history and AugustO is practicing bad historiography.

Most of the population growth in the world today is happening in the developed world and a large percentage of these people are from creationist families and grow up to be creationists. October 26, 2012 was a terrible day for Darwinism as is today. Darwinists can hide from this trend, but they cannot hide! Historybuff

re: book

When asking a historical question to frame a historical investigation, a historian must be both explicit and precise. The word "soon" is not explicit and precise. The meaning of "soon" varies depending on a person's culture and personal disposition.

Therefore, as far as this 2013 announcement made on another website which Conservapedia reported on, AugustO's accusation cannot be sustained. Historybuff 17:04, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

Your sock User:Historybuff gave the impression of an independent commentator who was just in total agreement with you, thereby supporting your position - something worse than a claqueur. Do you deny that such an action is dishonest?
--AugustO 08:33, 3 January 2015 (EST)
Does the User: Conservative account merely consist of one editor? Did User: Karajou tell you that the User: Conservative consist of merely one editor (Something I highly doubt since he was privately told that the User: Conservative account consists of more than one editor). How long will you continue this Pickett's Charge? You remind me of the WWII German evolutionists who kept fighting after America entered the war (The creationist Dwight D. Eisenhower certainly outfoxed the German evolutionists! [10]).
By the way, why is what the historybuff account posted to you so upsetting to you? Conservative 15:43, 3 January 2015 (EST)
  • Here, I'm talking about your socks, not about your version of a split personality.
  • The content of User:Historybuff's edits isn't upsetting - the fact that you saw the need to hide behind a dummy to make these points is disturbing. (That you don't see that this tactic is dishonest even more so.)
--AugustO 15:54, 3 January 2015 (EST)

AugustO, do you believe that one person largely wrote the homosexuality and the Atheist actions against homosexuals article (the title of the article was originally Atheist persecution against homosexuals" if memory serves, but one editor within "User: Conservativedom" objected to this title) and that one person wrote both articles. The article Atheist actions against homosexuals was a shock to those obsessed with the User: Conservative account and the footnoting style is different than the homosexuality article as well. What are your thoughts on this matter?

AugustO, it appears to irritate you to no end that you cannot prove that historybuff was an editor who also edited using the User: Conservative account. Stealthy American creationists no doubt irritated German evolutionists when American creationists landed on the beaches of Normandy!

微乎微乎,至于无形;神乎神乎,至于无声;故能为敌之司命。 Conservative 16:07, 3 January 2015 (EST)

come on ken we all know it's you. stop this silly game. with love, --TimothyT1 18:14, 3 January 2015 (EST)
Solve the mystery!! Much to his dismay, AugustO certainly cannot!! Clearly, the term "LGBTQ community" lacks machismo! Does it not? :) Conservative 18:28, 3 January 2015 (EST)
By the way AugustO, if German evolutionists are so adamantly opposed to stealth, then why did you guys use so many U-boats in WWII? Conservative 20:20, 3 January 2015 (EST)


  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer

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, User:Karajou and User:Jpatt, but I have lost the enthusiasm to continue contributing to CP in the face of this much liberal opposition. Thank you 4 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)

Dear Karajou, feel free to contact me on my e-mail if you wish. You were the one who encouraged me to contribute articles: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Response_to_User:SamHB.2C_User:PhilH_and_User:AugustO_Regarding_Ayurvedic_-_Chinese_-_Western_Herbal_Medicine_on_Conservapedia

"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."

Sadly, I no longer have the enthusiasm to contribute in the face of such 'strong' opposition from 5 very vociferous liberal/RINO editors. It's more of an uphill battle than it was on Wikipedia, I am very disappointed to say. Godspeed in all you do. TheAmericanRedoubt 02:26, 9 January 2015 (EST)

Andy, congratulations, you solved another problem by just ignoring it (quite actively). The drawback of your approach to management:
  • If User:TheAmericanRedoubt was a parodist - as I believe - then Conservapedia is burdened with hundreds of potentially toxic edits (like transformer), and a totally messed up system of categories.
  • If he was a honest editor - as User:Conservative think(s) - you did him a disservice, and his complaints are justified.
It is just a lose-lose-situation. Perhaps you could learn from this episode and answer my question above about #User:Conservative's sock(s)? --AugustO 11:17, 9 January 2015 (EST)

Stonewalling opponents!!! Conservative 16:43, 9 January 2015 (EST)

Have we reached the point where an effort to enforce our rules about copy and paste and the Style Manual gets reduced to name calling questioning whether someone is an "American" or a "RINO" or a "liberal" or a "parodist"? Everyone gave him polite and reasonable advice but TAR would not listen. I think TAR's retirement message was a direct response to this important copyright concern and I left a response on his talk page. Thanks, Wschact 12:00, 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)

Dear Andy: If TAR is saying that he is making a disproportionate amount (72%) of the problem edits that required correction, I am willing to accept his number, although I have no memory of first looking to see who was the originator of each problem. The problem is that we have someone who does not understand CP style and policy seeking to add a massive amount of material that has a lot of copy and paste problems, including copy and pasting into many articles from a common set of "See also" references instead of writing new ones for each article.
Karajou, Conservative and I have each suggested that TAR slow down and try to write complete articles instead of rushing through copy and pasted new stubs. If TAR wants to "de-orphan" an article, perhaps he should add a sentence to a related article instead of plunk a link into the "see also" section of an unrelated article. I would also suggest watching how TAR pipes his links. A pipe should direct the reader to the article represented by the linked phrase, not to something different.
Finally, I would suggest that Conservapedia would be better served by cooperation that combines our "talents", our "genius" and our "educational" backgrounds rather than having one person show blind "persistence" in the face of cautionary comments of others. So, I don't think that TAR's Calvin Coolidge quote captures the spirit of Conservapedia. Please review the links here and decide for yourself. Many thanks, Wschact 20:34, 9 January 2015 (EST)
I think the main reason why Wschact is bent out of shape about TheAmericanRedoubt is his material on traditional/alternative medicine. I pointed out that Japan is unique as a country because highly advanced modern Western medicine coexists with traditional Asian medicine.[11] The Japanese have a life expectancy that is 5 years greater than American's life expectancy. It seems reasonable to believe that thousands of years of trial and error has caused there to be some efficacy in traditional/folk medicine. I have found that turmeric/ginger works great to prevent/mitigate post workout soreness for example. It's a cheap and safe method too. I realize that traditional/folk medicine has its problems and one has to exercise discretion, but so does Western medicine.
At the same time, I do think it is better to create reasonable length articles one at a time then create a lot of stub articles. Readers don't really care for stub articles. That is why the major search engines don't rank stub articles highly in their search results. Conservative 00:32, 10 January 2015 (EST)
Thanks, Cons. By the way, TAR had me go back and count my edits since Dec 16, and I edited 139 times related to mentoring TAR and 72 times unrelated to TAR, for a ratio of 65%. I would suggest some longer comprehensive articles and if TAR needs help with categories, he should feel free to just ask. Wschact 01:12, 10 January 2015 (EST)

Kind Advice from Conservative and Karajou and my Response - No more Survivalism-Guns-AltMed-Permaculture-HamRadio, just Indian Philosophy articles from me now

If Wschact acts unreasonably in order to protect liberal sacred cows or acts in a petty way due to you adding conservative content that he does not like, please contact User: Karajou and/or User: JPatt. On the other hand, please be judicious about this matter. If Wschact offers useful input, please take it.

I did solve the SamHB issue for you though. Should SamHB return, I suspect he will be far less truculent due to it being pointed out that masses of people are leaving his unfree state of Massachusetts each year. Obviously, people leave a sinking unfree ship of state and not a successful freedom loving flagship state. Conservative 03:20, 11 January 2015 (EST)

By the way, don't ever get frustrated and quit. Stand your ground and if necessary call in the cavalry of Karajou and Jpatt. :) Conservative 03:26, 11 January 2015 (EST)
I reopened my user talk page mailbox. However, please please contact Karajou/Jpatt first as they may be more active than me at CP in the foreseeable future. I did make some promises to people to assist them with off wiki projects so Karajou/JPatt may act more quickly for you. Conservative 03:36, 11 January 2015 (EST)
Sorry fellow Conservatives, but Wschact (and all the really vociferous "libs"/RINOS here) finally won with their bullying. Washact and the five others, but especially Washact, have tired me out, calling me a parodist, a hijacker, etc, etc. The 'only' thing Wshact didn't immediately edit are my Buddhist and Indian philosophy article contributions Category:Indian Philosophy and Category:Buddhism. It's simply too much of an uphill battle here with these loud-mouthed five, especially wshact. It's just too demoralizing even for an energetic contributor like me. As long as he is hounding me on 'every' edit and template, it's just not worth it to me.
I can contribute my time and high energy elsewhere for the Conservative cause, where there is a slightly longer "pérennité" (as the French say) / durability to my contributions. I am sad to say my similar veined edits actually stayed visible on Wikipedia much longer before the vultures swooped in than they did here. At least over at Wikipedia I can contribute complementary medicine/herbology material without having it immediately deleted/reverted. Numerous items I contributed at Wikipedia lasted sometimes for weeks at a time, not just a few minutes or hours before deletion/reverting. And they usually put up a top of the page Admin template flag on it first for a couple days to weeks rather than just remove/revert it instantly like weshact is doing.
I think I will return back to the Conservative/Preparedness Forums from which I came. From now on you will only see on CP the occasional Buddhist, Hindu, Indian philosophy article I may perhaps continue to contribute since Comparative Religions/Philosophy was one of my past formal study areas in college.
I sent you Karajou and User:Conservative a private e-mail about it.
Be strong. Be of good courage. God bless America. Long live the Republic.

TheAmericanRedoubt 05:50, 11 January 2015 (EST)

This template Template:Second Amendment topics and it's Backup User:TheAmericanRedoubt/Second Amendment topics is my last contribution for the Second Amendment-RKBA-Firearms-Survivalism-Prepping. It says it all. TheAmericanRedoubt 06:17, 11 January 2015 (EST) User:TheAmericanRedoubt/Second Amendment topics

Conservative recommended contacting you

Mr. Schlafly, peace be with you. Conservative recommended I request night editing rights pursuant to problem detailed briefly on this Community Portal (link). Thank you for all your hard work. --Dataclarifier 11:10, 9 January 2015 (EST)

Andy, Dataclarifier wants night editing rights. I think you should grant this. Conservative 16:19, 9 January 2015 (EST)

Please restore my user and talk pages

I am also sending Andy private email about this.

Cons had absolutely no authority to delete them. People say they are going to be inactive all the time. (In fact, TAR did so just a few days ago.) My understanding is that user and talk pages are only deleted when a user has been inactive for a long period of time. In fact, I got into an argument with JoeyJ on that point a few months ago. SamHB 16:17, 10 January 2015 (EST)

User:Conservative's actions are very troubling. --AugustO 17:52, 10 January 2015 (EST)
SamHB, if you hadn't been rude to TAR and rather chose to engage in constructive dialogue with him, I wouldn't have deleted your user page and talk page. I felt you were a stuffed shirt who was acting unreasonably and you deserved a comeuppance. And the state which you were defending via illegitimate means (namely argument by outrage/"I'm offended") is nothing to write home about and that is why masses of people are leaving your state each year.
Nevertheless, people do change their mind about editing Conservapedia so I decided to restore your user page and talk page upon further deliberation and not delete it, but instead give you the 3-4 year time of user inactivity (which Mr. Schlafly indicated was a reasonable before user page deletion in my discussion with him). Conservative 20:13, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Three actions requested

Andy, I am respectfully requesting the following relief:

1) That my IP address be unblocked [done]

2) That User:TheAmericanRedoubt's (TAR) blocking rights be removed

3) That you impose reasonable editing restrictions on TAR's future editing

User:Conservative (Cons) and I have been trying to mentor TAR, who has established a very expansive goals for himself and he has expressed that he feels pressured and under stress to accomplish a great amount in a short time frame. This was triggered by a misunderstanding of the scope of Conservapedia categories (e.g., he thinks that each US Constitutional Amendment should have a separate category) and by criticism about his creating so many new red links to non-existent articles. Cons, I and others urged him to write longer articles rather than copy and pasting single sentence articles.

At first, TAR was responsive and promised to change and to correct past errors, but he did not.

TAR also has a strange sense of "ownership". He creates articles with an edit summary of "rough draft" and complains if anyone else make changes to his articles, even to fix technical problems. He created new categories and made them subcategories of themselves or of their own subcategories. He created long category pages like Category:Pro Second Amendment and then populated it with 29 subcategories and 164 articles. He would add the category to articles in cases where there was nothing in the article discussing attitudes toward the Second Amendment. I find that such labeling to be sloppy and a detriment to the usability of Conservapedia.

A number of editors either repaired his mistakes or posted contemporaneous talk page comments. We tried to avoid getting into revert wars with him. Looking through the article histories, some other editors did come along and repeated some of my edits after TAR reverted them, but I was not aware of this at the time.

All of this made TAR frustrated and he announced that he was leaving Conservapedia, denouncing "liberal/RINO" editors. A number of editors such as JoeyJ began to clean up the mess that TAR left behind. A few hours later, TAR decide to return to editing. I started Template talk:Second Amendment groups to express concerns with POV pushing and other technical flaws in that template. Rather than following the normal chronological organization of a talk page, TAR copied over it with the template itself. [12] and then later rearrange the page to put a statement of his "ownership" and his ideas on top and burried my discussion after a transclusion of the template.[13] We did a bit of reverting back and forth until I could establish that both our views would be presented as a traditional talk page. I pointed out clear violations of Conservapedia Commandment #5.

Last night, TAR decided that another dramatic move was needed, so he posted a message on the talk page of the dozens of items he felt he "owned" (and created a new talk page when necessary) essentially making a personal attack against me as a "liberal/RINO" and stating that because of me, he would confine his future editing to "the occasional Buddhist, Hindu, Indian philosophy article I may perhaps continue to contribute". I was alarmed by this over-reaction and left what was intended to be a conciliatory message on his talk page clarifying that I was not trying to confine the scope of his effort, but rather recommending that he write longer articles instead of one sentence articles. [14] a few minutes later, he blocked me ("09:27, 11 January 2015 TheAmericanRedoubt (Talk | contribs) blocked Wschact (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Sockpuppet/Abusing multiple accounts)"). There is no reason to believe that I am using multiple accounts and I am not sure that TAR understands what that means.

Perhaps Cons was not aware that TAR had blocked me because 5 minutes later, he left a message on my talk page about how he would like to move forward. These edits were later rev/del'ed, but you can still see them. He later posted a version on Jpatt, Karajou and TAR's talk pages.

Anyone who has struggled to understand how talk pages work, how templates work, how categories work should not be authorized to block on the basis of Sockpuppet allegations. TAR does not have the technical competence to hold the Block right, and I respectfully request that you remove it.

I think that TAR has a lot of energy, but lacks the skill set to achieve his ambitious goals. We need to contain any unintended fallout from his sweeping work. I leave it to you to fashion a remedy, but I would suggest that he write articles on a user subpage and then have another editor/mentor review them before the article is moved into the main article space. If you look at the Community Portal or the specific article talk pages, you can see the variety of problem edits involved. With utmost respect, Wschact 17:01, 11 January 2015 (EST)

A reply to Wschact

TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) expressed concerns that the Wschact account was using multiple individuals from different geographic areas to team up on him. Using checkuser, I looked at the IP addresses and it appeared to be suspicious. Edits from multiple states within the United States all using the same Wschact account.

Since Karajou has greater experience with the checkuser function, I wrote him and Karajou wrote:

"In response to user Conservative's question "Is Wschact multiple,,,editors?", I'm going to have to give a "yes" answer to it. First, there's the allegation of hounding against TAR. Looking at Wschact's previous edits, it looks like he's following TAR's every move with a counter-move. This is part-and-parcel to what happens inside Wikipedia, when an editor who has nothing better to do forces himself into the mix, acts like the first author is doing everything wrong, seeks to make "corrections", and everything ends up with the first author booted out under allegations of being uncooperative.

Second, in direct answer to Conservative's question, here's Wschact's IP's:


If you look closely at the dates, some over-lap. For instance, of the two at the bottom, in the first he's in [STATE A] using a cell phone, with the second he's in [STATE B] using a company ISP. In the IP second from the top, he's on a cell phone in [STATE C]; the top one he's back in [STATE B].

And there's more. Look at that second IP. There's three total users, but only two under Wschact. The third belongs to someone who called himself "GibsMuhDat".... This individual used the following IPs from the [STATE D] area....As above, the second IP is a cell phone, possibly the same phone, but in [A DIFFERENT PLACE IN STATE D]. Unless this guy gets around a lot, I tend to agree with Conservative that there are several individuals operating under one name in the site, and using Wikipedia tactics against someone else."

Wsacht, I see a pattern of you hounding THeAmericanRedoubt in order to make him angry. The suspicious IP address editing pattern combined with the hounding is troubling.

I also see THeAmericanRedoubt (TAR) having a spirit of wanting to get along and also willing to compromise (TAR has agreed to not create additional ayurvedic medicine articles at this time). I wish I could say the same thing about the Wsacht account, but I cannot. Conservative 18:36, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Final thoughts

Cons, thank you for allowing me to understand the nature of the evidence, which apparently TAR did not have when he blocked me. I recommend that only admins be allowed to block people for "Sockpuppet" because they have access to the data. The data will show that I indeed have been traveling around the country starting at Thanksgiving and returning on Monday, January 6. Each time, I logged in and used my single Conservapedia account. I have not lent my password to anyone else. I have been trying to mentor TAR, not to make him angry. Both Cons and I have gone out of our way to explain things to him, but I agree some other editors were a bit more testy when they also noticed the problem edits. People should only be granted the Block right if they show maturity and experience. This week we have had two threats from TAR to retire dramatically -- it is worthy of Charles de Gaulle.
As for compromise, I have given TAR wide latitude as to what and when he edits and also tried leaving him talk messages instead of just stepping in a making corrections myself. I also honored his various requests to hold off for a couple of weeks to clean up various problems himself. But he does not go back and make the promised clean ups. I can understand compromise over content, but where is compromise involved in saving a template mistakenly on the template talk page? The people patrolling his edits should not approve them without first making sure that they are not creating unintended harm to the project. Many thanks! Wschact 19:14, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Second reply to Wschact

President Lincoln wrote about people often having two natures. A more noble nature guided by conscience and a more base nature as well.

TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) and I have no problem with the more noble Dr. Jekyll part of your nature which deals with stylistic issues. I communicated with TAR today via phone and he clearly understands the rationale behind the various stylistic issues now. He is a fast learner and very cooperative. It is often much easier to communicate via phone. He is going to create longer articles (he only created stub articles to fill in the red links that AlanE complained about) which don't have long "see also" sections.

On the other hand Wschacht, there is an element of personal animus that you displaying towards TheAmericanRedoubt due to his approach to health care (he agreed to not write ayurvedic medicine articles at this time) and his very conservative political beliefs (anti-gun control, advocacy of moving out of liberal states, etc. etc.). In short, there is a Mr. Hyde nature that you are displaying towards TAR. The sheer volume of your counter edits is a problem. In addition, some of your counter edits appear to be in response his conservative ideology.

TheAmericanRedoubt doesn't appear to hold a grudge towards you. He only blocked you due to the IP address issue and the hounding. You need to dial back the hounding. I don't think it is necessary - especially given my recent communication/coaching with him and his ability to learn fast. Conservative 19:50, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Andy has to decide. If TAR felt "pressure" and "hounded" (when everyone was saying there was no need to hurry), he should not be the one to make the Block decision, and does not have the temperament to hold the Block bit. I was bending over backwards to be kind and 5 minutes later, he blocks me indefinitely. Thanks, Wschact 20:18, 11 January 2015 (EST)
Wschact, I suggest communicating with User: Karajou at this point about this matter if anything further needs to be resolved. TAR and Karajou have decided to work together to resolve this issue should the matter need further attention (they have exchanged emails, etc.). Conservative 23:37, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Deuteronomy 25:13-15

13You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. 14You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. 15A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

  1. When an administrator creates a sock to deceive, it gets ignored - while usually, this is an offense which is harshly punished.
  2. When User: Wschact voices his concerns, but offers help, this is called hounding - when User: Wschact gets blocked for a wrong reason, this is ignored.
  3. When I restore a section on your talk page, User:Conservative blocks me for two days - block reason: "untrimming Andy's talk page. A talk page is a user's castle!". When User:Conservative deletes the talk-page of a longtime editor against his expressed wishes, nothing happens.
  4. When longtime members of this wiki ask for your input, they are ignored (rather rudely). And then, User:TheAmericanRedoubt is informed that "the owner of Conservapedia would like to talk to you this week if you are available to talk to him. He wants the website to be a welcoming place for new editors."
  5. User:TheAmericanRedoubt performs an unjustified 90/10 block on User:AugustO, but User:AugustO is threatened with the loss of his blocking-rights.

--AugustO 19:28, 15 January 2015 (EST)

Prayer in public schools

"It's illegal for Christians to pray in public school, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. But in Michigan, Muslims are being given special prayer privileges by school administrators, raising questions as about due process, equal protection, and freedom of speech for followers of the faith of America's Founding Fathers."[15]

Were you aware of this matter? Conservative 07:06, 15 January 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...

You are the lawyer, Andy, you know what counterfactual claims are called.

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

New Direction

Andy, in 2007 you wrote:

Wikipedia is useful for watching how a website attempts to boost traffic based on the search algorithms employed by Google. Overuse of linking, which is distracting to readers, helps boost placement in its search engines. As only a small percentage of Wikipedia users go there first to look for information, Wikipedia (unlike Conservapedia) is overwhelmingly dependent on search engine referrals.

The last couple of days showed that Conservapedia is heading in the same direction! It would be nice to get your public endorsement of this new policy: is Conservapedia to be centered around the ideas of survivalists, which start to penetrate every article, instead of being a encyclopedic resource aimed at high-school pupils? Or do you prefer to wait-and-see, just to follow the trends instead of leading the enterprise?

At the moment, I try to maintain the standards of Conservapedia as given in Conservapedia:Commandments, Conservapedia:Guidelines and Conservapedia:Manual of Style. If you just declare that these standards don't apply to the new survivalist editors, I can save much time and effort!

--AugustO 05:02, 16 January 2015 (EST)

That sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo about the search engines. The search engines largely use common sense approaches from what I read. That overlinking on web pages to boost the rankings of the web page sounds like antiquated hogwash. When I Google various subjects I don't see web pages assaulting me with links. We are no longer at the dawn of the internet and search engines. The search engines are pretty sophisticated nowadays now that hardware and processing cost are much cheaper and computers are more powerful. From what I have seen, the search engine results have been getting better over time.
I added some material to the manual of style to defang the category tag gestapo of Wsacht and AugustO. Lots of excellent wikis have a fair number of category tags at the bottom of their pages. There is no reason why category tags have to be a big source of contention at this wiki. Less than 1% of web visitors use them on pages from what I have seen. Category tags are at the bottom of the page and many readers never even get to the bottom of most web pages. AugustO and Wsacht are creating tempests in teapots when it comes to category tags.
AugustO, your "chicken little" like warnings about survivalism material is overblown. The sky is not falling. A lot of conservatives live in rural areas where they place a greater importance on being not overly dependent on others. And that is true of conservatives as a whole. And get used to gun rights articles. It's part of conservatism. Conservative 05:54, 16 January 2015 (EST)
From what I have seen, Wsachat and AugustO would have dismissed John the Baptist as some kind of "mountain man" nut because he was a religious conservative who lived in a rural area and subsisted on locusts and honey!!!! Let's have some tolerance gentlemen. Why is it that the most intolerant people are often the most liberal! Conservative 06:09, 16 January 2015 (EST)
  • Other than you, User:Conservative, I wouldn't call Andy's observations mumbo jumbo.
  • I've no problem with gun-rights articles, etc. I've a problem with seeing everything from the viewpoint of the coming apocalypse: just look at the category:Nuclear Target Structures.
  • I don't dismiss survivalists, etc - but it should be just one aspect of Conservapedia, not the domineering one.
  • The sky is not falling, but the direction is changing...
--AugustO 06:16, 16 January 2015 (EST)
"And behold, I am coming quickly". - Jesus. "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come." - The Apostle Paul. "Be prepared." - USA Boy Scouts. I hope this clarifies matters! :) Conservative 06:23, 16 January 2015 (EST)

I looked at the nuclear target structures material. The developed world and some developing countries have spent a considerable amount of funds on nuclear weapons. And the number of countries getting nuclear weapons appears to be headed towards an increase. It is natural that people would have some thoughts on nuclear target structures. Please endeavor to be less critical of others articles. Nobody ever built a monument to a critic. Instead of creating endless disputes, use some of that energy to create more content instead of slowing down others as far as creating content. Conservative 06:38, 16 January 2015 (EST)

  • I haven't deleted or changed the content of User:TheAmericanRedoubt's (or User:OGSMEDIA's) articles
  • I'm just trying to maintain Conservapedia's traditions and standards with regard to red links and categories. I said it before: it is annoying that such a menial task takes so much effort - even to take Attack on Perl Harbor from category:Nuclear Target Structures was resisted!
  • Andy, if you wish to have these rules overhauled and year-old traditions disregarded by new-comers, please just say so!
--AugustO 07:03, 16 January 2015 (EST)
--AugustO 07:03, 16 January 2015 (EST)
Tradition... Category tags.... You certainly have a fanatical and pharisaical devotion to hair-splitting about category tags. Man was not created for category tags. Category tags were created for men! I abridged the manual of style when it comes to category tags. Your reign of category tag tyranny is over! Conservative 07:41, 16 January 2015 (EST)

Blocking rights

User:Conservative informed me that he has asked you to strip me of my blocking rights. Here my 2 cents:

It will be very ironic to be punished for something which should be so uncontroversial as the first rule of categorization: nothing should be in a category and one of its (direct) super/sub-categories. Andy often emphasizes the importance of logic for this site, so it is very surprising that he'll enforce (as you, User:Conservative imply) illogical categorization!
It is really not rocket-science: R. Heinlein was an author who wrote science-fiction - thereby he belongs into category:Science Fiction Authors. He doesn't belong into category:Science Fiction, as any reader who looks at category:Science Fiction will be surprised that he obviously doesn't fit in a subcategory....
OTOH category:Best Selling Authors should not be a sub-category of category:Science Fiction Authors (as it is now), as it includes authors like Glenn Beck and Agatha Christie... category:Best Selling Authors is also at the moment a sub-category of category:Liberal Authors, implying that all best sellers are written by liberals...
New editors should understand logic, too! So, please, show a little bit more logic, and a little less aggression. --AugustO 07:34, 16 January 2015 (EST)

Weighing in; cleaning the slate

Category Template.jpg

The current bone of contention has to do with the large amount of differing categories - many of which are not needed and/or useless - by TAR. I talked to him about it, and he's agreeable to be more sensitive to this issue. I am guessing here (I could be wrong) that TAR doesn't know how to properly categorize articles. This needs correcting here, but I don't think such correction involves petty fights from any of us. I also don't think AugustO needs blocking rights removed; he gets frustrated at things like any of us. I got frustrated with Wschact for overly-stalking TAR, Tar got frustrated with Joey, and Conservative got frustrated with his washing machine. He hates Maytag.
What I think is needed is a plan for the various categories that we have, so each article is properly filed and easy to find for the avereage reader. The included image is an example, and I based it on the layout of a set by Britannica called Great Books of the Western World. What we need to do is wipe the slate, and get back on track with what needs to happen. Karajou 09:43, 16 January 2015 (EST)

  • That looks very promising. Often pictures work better than wordy explanations - even when repeated too often :-) Categorization is like the Dome of Cologne, it will never be finished - and it will never please everyone. But obvious errors should be avoided.
  • Yes, I get frustrated: I'm performing a menial - but not unimportant - task which should be totally uncontroversial, and I even explain my edits on the talk-pages. Then, I'm called a "Category Tag Nazi", "Category Gestapo", "petty and contentious", etc. I get threatened ("Back off!", my favorite: "A cat only has so many lives. I think you are on your 8th. But in all of the excitement lately, maybe its your 9th. Do you fell lucky?"), and then indeed, I get blocked (for one day only , but with an obviously invalid block-reason: "90/10 rule: excess of talk rather than edits to substantive entries") Does anyone commutes this obviously wrong block? Is the blocking editor admonished? Or at least does anyone explain to him what the "90/10" rule entails? No, to put the cherry on top, I'm the one threatened with losing my blocking-rights! Shouldn't I fell bullied?
  • I know that I won't get an apology for being insulted or wrongly blocked: those are reserved for administrators. The best I can hope for is something along the line: "well, we didn't get you this time...". Frustrating is quite an apt description.
--AugustO 11:02, 16 January 2015 (EST)
The creationism and communism articles have both received about 190,000 page views respectively. The creationism and communism category tags have both received about 7,000 page views. So about 3.5% of people who went to creationism/communism main articles also clicked the category tags of the various articles relating to creationism/communism. Conservapedia has a big selection of communism related articles with communism category tags on them and a decent size amount of creationism articles with creationism related tags on them.
There you have it. A very small percentage of people click category tags.
On the other hand, Conservapedia has a small active editor base and TheAmericanRedoubt is the only "power editor" in terms of creating a lot of new content.
Next, I have seen various reviews of wikis. Not once did they mention a wikis category tags.
Content is king on the internet and a strong website creates a lot of it. Category tags are not even close to being king.
So from a cost/benefit analysis, focusing on category tags with a new user and doing it in an aggressive way that aggravated someone creating a lot of new content doesn't make sense. On top of this, the new editor had editors acting in petty ways unrelated to category tags which made him less open to hearing them about their category complaints. In addition, I thought that a percentage of their category complaints were petty.
With that being said, hopefully the matter is resolved and Karajou's diagram will be helpful to new editors. Personally, I don't think the matter is resolved - at least in a satisfactory/optimal way. For example, the amount of new content that TheAmericanRedoubt created today is a fraction of his usual amount. Conservative 20:23, 16 January 2015 (EST)
You can't deduce that 3.5% of people who visited those pages clicked on that category just because it has 3.5% the page views of each of those pages--people could have viewed that pages from other categories, or by being linked in externally. 7500 views is also far from insignificant--that's potentially thousands of people. You don't want thousands of people to be confused by irrelevant categories. Where do we draw the line to this approach to categories? Should Communism and Creationism both get the categories "Words that start with the letter C", "Words that start with C and end with M", etc? These two wildly different topics fit into both of those categories, but it's clear that those categories shouldn't go on those pages because there's no real value gained by adding them. We shouldn't excuse this practice just because an editor creates a lot of content. We should all strive to be better editors, recognize we aren't perfect, and accept advice from others. Just because someone brings a large quantity of content here doesn't mean they should get a pass on quality.--JonY 21:30, 16 January 2015 (EST)

JonY, show me a website linking to Conservapedia's communism/creationism category web pages. I don't believe you can do so.

Content is still king. Category pages are not. A website's text content and pictures receive reviews, press, social media shares, etc.

Tonight I am going to a restaurant. I am not going to rate the restaurant on whether or not they offer the McCormick brand of pepper on the table. That would be like focusing on category tags! :) Believe it or not. I am going to focus on the quality of food the waitress/waiter brings to the table and not their brand of pepper they offer patrons. :) Conservative 21:49, 16 January 2015 (EST)

I followed User:TheAmericanRedoubt's example ("Conservapedia:Community_Portal#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" and "User talk:AugustO#In 19 Months AugustO submits 2 New 1 Paragraph Articles, 13 New Talk Pages; in 2 weeks 83 Related to TheAmericanRedoubt") and took a closer look at his user contributions:
  1. User:TheAmericanRedoubt isn't a new editor: he started in early April 2014, and in December 2014 had already made many more than 1000 edits.
  2. Then, he mainly added categories(!) to articles, created "see also"-sections, and inserted internal wiki-links. Looking at some of his edits, there isn't much unusual to them (other perhaps that he links to categories(!) in the "see also"-sections.) Generally, he avoids creating red links by piping ([[duty|basic purpose]]) - but I just looked at a small sample of his edits, and while they seem to be excessive some times, they are not too controversial.
  3. Coming December 2014, he seemingly loses this piping-ability, and red links start to spread (e.g., Cleon Skousen). He increases the number of categories he adds to articles, too.
It seems that User:TheAmericanRedoubt is well aware of the way a wiki works. He shouldn't have a problem to follow the rules and guidelines of Conservapedia. --AugustO 02:37, 17 January 2015 (EST)
AugustO, the TAR issues with formatting/coding/harassment at a wiki appear to have been solved or at least largely solved. My apologies for overreacting.
In recent times, I am usually pretty unflappable and am working on being more unflappable. In addition, I have been spending less time on talk pages and I plan on spending less time on talk pages in the future. In the future, my editing and reading of CP will largely/exclusively be focused on editing the main page and article pages. There is no sense in spending excessive time trying to reason with liberals who tend to be very unreasonable (this is especially true in the political realm).
I incorporated Karajou's diagram into the manual of style. So some good did come out of this thankfully. Conservative 15:22, 17 January 2015 (EST)