View source for User talk:Aschlafly

== Deletion request ==

Hello Andy, would you please delete these two redirects: [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:RationalWiki&redirect=no][https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=RationalWiki&redirect=no] They give way too much recognition to a leftist website created to vandalize CP and which slanders CP editors. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 08:29, 16 April 2019 (EDT)

:Done as requested!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 09:15, 16 April 2019 (EDT)

== Miley Cyrus photo ==

Hello Andy, do you think it's inappropriate to include this photo on the [[Miley Cyrus]] page? [[:File:Miley Cyrus.jpg]] I don't have much of a problem with it, but DouglasA disagrees. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]])
:I'm OK with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:23, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

== MPR suggestion ==

This struck me as a very Conservapedia type of story: "[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/in-god-we-trust-will-remain-on-u-s-currency-as-supreme-court-declines-atheist-challenge 'In God We Trust' will remain on US currency as Supreme Court declines atheist challenge]." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:54, 10 June 2019 (EDT)

== So the last will be first, and the first last ==

Could you please explain this concept in the language of set theory? What ''is'' the paradox, and how is it resolved by set theory? Thanks. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 10:45, 13 June 2019 (EDT)
:The paradox is obvious.  In number theory and virtually every other system of logic, the last cannot be the first.  But in set theory it can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:31, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
::I take the bait: how can the last be the first in set theory? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:40, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
:::Thanks for archiving.  Enumeration of elements of a set is up to the intelligent designer.  This is how [[Georg Cantor]] proved that the set of real numbers is larger than the infinite set of rational numbers.  But you're in good company if you resist his way of looking at things.  Many great mathematicians of his time thought (incorrectly) that he was some kind of charlatan.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:44, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
Georg Cantor's great breakthrough ("Cantor diagonalization") was not in showing that the rationals are countable&mdash;that is a fairly straightforward construction&mdash;but in using that fact to show that the reals are not countable.  There are many ways to specify the correspondence between a given denumerable (countable) set and the natural numbers.  In fact, there are a uncountably infinite number of ways to set up the correspondence.  Whether any of these constitute "intelligent design" is not for me to say, except that I think that term gets overused in certain quarters.

Then there's the matter of a "well ordering".  A "well order" on a set is an order such that any subset has a least element.  So a set with a "well order" is sort of like the positive integers&mdash;any subset of the positive integers, even an infinite subset, has a least element.  (Note that the full set of integers, or the rationals, or the reals, are ''not'' well-ordered by their normal arithmetical order.)  But it is a theorem of ZFC logic that any set has a well-order.

Does the well-ordering theorem constitute intelligent design?  That's not for me to say.  Does it disprove the Cantor diagonalization theorem?  No.  The well-order on the reals necessarily uses the Axiom of Choice, and cannot be constructed.  Cantor diagonalization ''can'' be constructed.

Getting back down to Earth, sets can have different orders&mdash;the natural numbers from 1 to 100 can have an increasing order and a decreasing order (and 100 factorial other orders too.)  With that notion, "the last" under one order "will be first" under the other order.  But this is completely obvious under any system of logic, including set theory.  But claiming that it's true for the ''same'' set with the ''same'' order is simply nonsensical.

:But I'm in good company if I resist your way of looking at things in this manner.  I'm sure AugustO is also.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:39, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
::"sets can have different orders" - precisely.  But the number line does not.  What Jesus taught was nonsensical to logicians and philosophers of his time, but perfectly logical once [[Georg Cantor]] overcame intense opposition and developed the breakthrough of [[set theory]].  If Cantor's opponents had recognized the [[Bible]] as a book of logic with an open mind, then they would not have mistakenly opposed Cantor so much.  Ditto for [[Thomas Paine]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:47, 17 June 2019 (EDT)

:::The real line, like all sets of more than one element, most definitely ''can'' have multiple different orderings.  Here's an alternative ordering off the top of my head.  Let SWAP(X) be result of swapping the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> decimal digits, the 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> digits, and so on.  Then we can define an ordering on the reals that has X < Y in this ordering if SWAP(X) < SWAP(Y) in the usual numerical ordering.  While this may sound weird and contrived, this sort of thing happens all the time in set theory and measure theory, and is actually very close to what goes on in Cantor diagonalization.

:::Many people were criticized or vilified at some point in their lives.  Georg Cantor, Thomas Paine, Galileo Galilei, Louis Pasteur, and Oliver Heaviside come to mind.  I don't think it is fruitful to analyze these cases in detail here, and I don't think you have established that the criticism of Cantor arose from an insufficiently open-minded reading of Matthew 20:16.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:27, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

Could you please quote one philosopher or logician of His time who was baffled be Matthew 20:16 (or Mark 10:31 or Luke 13:30)?  Especially as Matthew writes ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι  and not εἰσιν οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτο? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 13:02, 17 June 2019 (EDT)

:Many critics of the [[Bible]] were probably baffled by it.  Don't have quotes handy, but perhaps some can be found on [[atheism|atheist]] websites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:03, 17 June 2019 (EDT)

::So your claim that "''what Jesus taught was nonsensical to logicians and philosophers of his time''" was '''''probably''''' just made up. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 18:53, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
:::My statement was self-evident.  When I have more time I can research it further, but the reality is that writings of [[Jesus]] and his followers survived to a far greater extent than those of his detractors, so the thinking of non-believers is not always easy to find.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:30, 18 June 2019 (EDT)

I for one am not baffled by it at all.  Jesus was not making a statement about set theory or measure theory.  He was making a moral/ethical statement about pay scales.  One can disagree with Him (and some of the workers did), but His statement was very clear.  The "first" and "last" referred to the wages of the workers and the time when they had joined the work crew.  Jesus's statement was clear in Biblical times and is clear now.

One can't just say "I have invented a new field of mathematics, and I am calling it 'set theory'".  One needs to provide various theorems and results showing that it is a fruitful new area of mathematics,  Cantor, and others, did just that.  There are the various theorems about cardinality and measure theory.  There's the Baire Category Theorem (which provides another proof, independent of diagonalization, that the cardinality of the reals is strictly greater than the cardinality of the rationals).  There's the Cantor set, which is a uncountable set of measure zero, a seemingly paradoxical result.  There's the Cantor function, which has derivative equal to zero everywhere except on a set of measure zero, but has f(0)=0 and f(1)=1, also seemingly paradoxical.  And there are other theorems, like the Heine-Borel theorem and the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem.  And Zorn's Lemma.  And, of course, all of analysis and topology.

You can't just treat set theory like some simple monolithic thing invented by Georg Cantor.  The notion that the field could have been worked out by an open-minded reading of Matthew 20:16 is rather far-fetched.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:27, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

:[[Set theory]] is a different style of reasoning.  Otherwise there would not have been such intense, hostile opposition to it.  But its power and logic ultimately prevailed over the opposition.  And [[Georg Cantor]] is properly given all the credit.

:Workers at the time of Jesus disagreed with him, as many do today, when he observed paradoxically that the "last shall be first, and the first last."  But when viewed as a set theorist does, there is not paradoxical about it at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:34, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

== MPR deletion ==

Hello Andy, would you please restore the massive amount of information accidentally deleted in this edit on [[Template:Mainpageright]]? (scroll down a bit): [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=123765&diff=1531181&oldid=1531162] I also sent you an email about this. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 17:27, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
:Thanks, I thought I restored it already.  It seems to have the proper link at the bottom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:30, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
::Sorry, I did not see that you had already restored the info. Thanks! --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 20:55, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

== Copy&paste of PD or freely usable material ==

Hi Andy,
[[User:Honeyko]] [[User_talk:Honeyko#Shadow Party|is wondering]] if it is acceptable to insert public domain or other freely usable text from Infogalactic (or perhaps other freely usable sources) into Conservapedia articles.  It is not plagiarism, but do we have a policy in regard to republishing such materials?  I was thinking that is was generally discouraged, but I'm not finding much about the topic in our rules and documentation.<br />
Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 19:28, 20 June 2019 (EDT)

:Infogalactic is not [[public domain]], but is under a Creative Commons type of license.  So, no, that material should not be copied here.  If something is truly [[public domain]], then copying to here is OK but attribution should be included.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:34, 20 June 2019 (EDT)

== A different name for the "Gish Gallop" ==

Eugenie Scott coined the term "Gish Gallop" as an insult to how Duane Gish supposedly went from claim to claim so fast in a debate that it would take much longer to answer each claim. However, Atheists do the same thing all the time, including Aron Ra. I heard Kent Hovind use the terms "Ra Rush" and "Ra Rant." I was wondering if there is a place for an article that describes this tactic without using the name that insults Duane Gish. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 17:58, 27 June 2019 (EDT)
:Good points.  But I checked [[Duane Gish]]'s entry and it says the term is used by his critics.  What do you suggest?  Please feel free to edit as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:04, 27 June 2019 (EDT)

== Image question ==

Hello Andy, is it appropriate (with licensing) to upload this image? [https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1010571197271011328] It was taken in the Oval Office and is on Trump's Twitter account, but it doesn't explicitly say that it's Public Domain. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:16, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
:That's [[public domain]].  We can use it.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:25, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
::Thanks! I will upload it right now. It's good to have a photo of one of the greatest political figures right now along with one of the greatest minds in constitutional law. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:27, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
:::Right:  Two-time winner of [[Conservative of the Year]] meets with its first winner (for the last decade)!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:46, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
::::I think both men will be candidates for the upcoming 2019 Conservative of the Year nominations. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:47, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

== Conservative Sports ==

Hi Andy, I don't have enough wiki experience to add to the table you created but I suggest Cricket as a conservative sport. It is commonly called 'The gentlemans sport' and I cribbed this from the internet: ''the game only gained popularity in the 17th century, when English aristocrats started playing it. They decreed that cricket would be played in ‘a gentlemanly manner’ , which means no sledging, cheating, bodyline bowling , temper tantrums or excessive appealing. If the batsman knew he was out, he should ‘walk’ even if the umpire decided otherwise. '' Cheating is punished quite heavily and the only team currently which breaks the gentleman's code is Australia who sometimes behave in a very nasty manner which is frowned upon (they have been fined multiple times for poor behaviour. The NZ Cricket team however are considered some of the best and kindest team - often making sure their competition are OK if they are felled or struck by the ball and playing with true sportsmanship ([https://www.livemint.com/Consumer/DhatXCE9grPFgvezoqLZDL/2016-World-T20-The-fire-and-water-of-Grant-Elliott.html see here] where a NZ player assists an opposing team who have just lost the match). A true sport of gentleman. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 23:00, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
:If you read the article it says ''Then Elliott made that noble gesture of sportsmanship to Steyn distraught on the ground, offering him a hand up.'' [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 23:04, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
::I would consider adding shooting sports: [https://www.nssf.org/shooting/shooting-sports-organizations/][http://4h.ucanr.edu/Projects/STEM/SET_Projects/ShootingSports/][https://www.scouting.org/outdoor-programs/shooting-sports/] Also, schools in more conservative areas are creating shooting sport teams (and I've heard that they used to be common in public schools): [https://time.com/longform/high-school-shooting-teams/][https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/09/its-safer-than-chess-the-high-school-shooting-clubs-standing-their-ground-after-parkland] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 23:10, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
:::These are terrific suggestions.  Please feel free to add them, or I will.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:23, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
::::Thank you Andy. If you could add cricket I would appreciate it. I don't have enough wiki experience! [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 23:33, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
:::::I figured it out by copy/paste. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 23:36, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

== PD template unlock request ==

Hello,<br />
[[Template:PD tag]] is used heavily on our image collection.  It is designed to require a parameter ("source") so that the source URL can be included in the template.  However, some people are attempting to use the template by simply referencing it and pasting the link.  This is something which ''should'' work, but it does not.  Ideally no parameter name should be required, but since it has been built and used this way, there is no changing it now. Instead, I would like to attempt to set up this template so that it accepts the URL with or without the "source" parameter tag, to simplify usage without breaking it on the 261 pages currently using it. I am not particularly skilled at this, but I think I can do it.<br />
Would you be willing to unlock the template so I can give it a try?  ''Note that it is also under cascading protection from [[:File:John McCain official portrait 2009.jpg]], and perhaps others, so the protection on such pages will also need to be updated.''  Thank you! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 18:24, 11 July 2019 (EDT)
:I unlocked it.  Please let me know if I need to unlock anything further!  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:41, 11 July 2019 (EDT)

::Thank you!  I think I have finished with it, as best I can, so it can be locked again, if you want. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 17:55, 22 July 2019 (EDT)

== Respectful disagreement ==

As I'm sure you know, not all people who are "conservatives" agree with each other. Even a lot of "conservatives" disagree with some things this website says (Such as conservatives who are not Young Earth Creationists, even devout Christians like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek are not YECs). For example, a newer user named Enr15 edited the article on the [[Roman Catholic Church]] to have an extremely biased Catholic point of view. I reverted the edits because I know that major changes like that should not be made without discussing on the talk page (I recommend he read "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" or watch this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP9jg2h3xjQ] ). At the same time, Northwest is Catholic. Is there a space where I can voice my own editorial opinions which might not agree with some of the information in this website (I won't change any mainspace articles without permission)? As an example, I have a very negative attitude towards extreme Christians and "Churchians" who condemn rock music, including Jack Chick, so I can see where some of his critics are coming from. I have also added many Christian Rock songs to the [https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs|Greatest Conservative Songs] article. I read his tract on that, and I do understand that many Christian musicians have been given tempting offers to take God out of their music since Christian music doesn't sell as well, and some have sold out, but not everyone does. Petra, in particular, has made some of the most wonderful songs ever, and it's mainly due to the songwriter and only original member, Bob Hartman. They are deeply devout and not Satanic by any stretch of the imagination. Look up the testimony of John Schlitt sometime, it's an amazing story of a man who went from the sin and vice of the secular music industry into the clean Christian music industry. The contrast of his before and after life is incredible.

You know that I've voiced disagreements about the Video Game article, and I like the fact that DavidB4 has made it less negative and judgmental. A lot of people get banned because they don't know how to disagree respectfully. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 15:02, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

:Differing viewpoints are welcome on this website in the search for the truth.  The talk page of an entry is the best place to post commentary.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:18, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

::I was thinking of adding a lot of general commentary to my user page. SamHB has done so with his page. But I wonder if doing too much of that constitutes a violation of the 90/10 rule. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 22:51, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
:::It should be OK to post repeated comments to your own talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:55, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
::The general principle should be that, if you edit something in a way that someone is likely to object to, put up your reasons on that article's talk page immediately.  Respectful discussion, without 90/10 threats, will often follow.  While the 90/10 rule is, in the end, whatever the blocking person wants it to be, I think the intent is to stop "[[anklebiter]]s" (I wrote that article, in response to just such a person!) who waste people's time with incessant and repeated whining over the same issue.

::I use my user page, as opposed to my talk page, much more than many people do.  This is done not so much for "90/10 insurance", as for making clear statements about where I stand on various issues; this is important, since most people here disagree with those stances.  One's user page is a more formal and proper way to make such statements than one's talk page.  This paractice may or may not suit you.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:19, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

:::Also, this is probably a little off-target, but if you have some specific topic you want to voice your opinion about in detail, there is also the option of writing an essay.  Essay polices are much more lenient, and allow for strongly opposing viewpoints and arguments, as long as they are done in a reasonable and respectable manner.  Otherwise, your user page is your own, so as was already discussed, this is a good place for such commentary.  The 90/10 rule is, as SamHB alluded to, intended only to stop those who constantly chatter and discuss, while almost never making any meaningful contributions.  It is not intended to stifle discussion, though.  Just keep making some substantive edits as well, and it seems to me that you should be fine. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 17:55, 22 July 2019 (EDT)

== Insight from Singapore's wealthiest man ==

The richest person in Singapore (one of the wealthiest countries in the world) has admitted that God and His Son Jesus are the most important things in one's life: [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/25/richest-man-in-singapore-missing-piece-in-his-life-god-through-jesus-christ/] He notes (and refutes) how modern culture rejects God and puts things like sex, alcohol, drugs, money, and material success (as seen in Hollywood movies, he notes). This seems like a powerful refutation of part of the secular left's worldview. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 01:02, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
:That's amazing ... and Breitbart rather than the [[lamestream media]] carries the story!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 01:12, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
::Are there any CP articles that are appropriate for me to add this? This is too important, I think, to not find a place for. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 12:27, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
:::Perhaps in the quotation section and/or elsewhere in this popular entry: [[materialism]]?  Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:18, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
::::Done! If there are any other good articles to add it, please let me know. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 14:28, 27 July 2019 (EDT)
== Don't bite the newbie editors via reversions ==
CP needs research assistants, copy editors, and people to do maintenance and formatting work, not just content contributers. Most wikis have a Don't Bite the Newbies policy. I find [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221367707_Don't_bite_the_newbies_How_reverts_affect_the_quantity_and_quality_of_Wikipedia_work this archived discussion useful.]  If CP doesn't have an official policy, it still is useful for CP Admins to know that reverting newcomers has the effect of limiting CP's user base. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 14:05, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
:Other than people inserting nonsense and/pushing misleading/errant liberal/leftist tripe, I think this was an excellent post. A little politeness and diplomacy goes a long way.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:26, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
::Oftentimes, new editors try to change the POV of articles, copy info from Wikipedia, or made other edits which are unencyclopedic (on an encyclopedia). Rob has a good point on treating new editors with respect, but it '''cannot''' be at the expense of the quality of CP's articles. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 14:26, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

== Unlock request ==

Would you please temporarily unlock [[:File:Holodomor2.jpg]], per a request from RobSmith so he can add categories? --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (EDT)
:I think you can re-lock it. Thanks! --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 17:03, 8 August 2019 (EDT)

== Violent Democrats == 
Hello Mr. Schlafly, 
Conservapedia has a page on atheist mass shooters, but Conservapedia does not have a page on mass shootings committed by Democrats/leftists. Can one be made? {{unsigned|JobsNotMobs}}
:We already have [[Left-wing violence in the Trump era]], where examples like that are already mentioned. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:41, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
::Yes. A Violent Democrats article would only start a nuclear arms race with a Violent Republicans article here and elsewhere. OTHO, if trends continue and Democrat party leaders continue advocating violence, it may be necessary someday. Just not now. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 23:16, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

== MPR ==

A poll found that Republicans have become even more opposed to gun control, despite massive pressure from the media, Democrats, the establishment, and liberal activists: [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/457347-republican-support-for-gun-control-dips-since-parkland-massacre] This setback for the Left might be a good MPR entry. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 16:47, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

== KIWIFarms ==

Hi.

I have a question regarding article creations. Should I create an article for KIWIFarms, and if so, should I list it as a conservative site or a liberal site? On the one hand, it mocks disabled people and may have driven someone to suicide. But on the other, they did show the massacre at New Zealand and didn't cave to censorship, so... yeah. Not sure what to list it as, if it should be created that is. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:20, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
:It's your call.  Disapproval of someone or something is not an absolute bar on creating an entry about them.  But I would leave out any suicide accusation as too speculative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:28, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
::The site is neither. It's a juvenile meme troll factory and barely satirical or parody. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:01, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
:::Okay. Well, since it's neither, probably better off not creating them. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:19, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
::::It's amazing that sites that allow free thought and exchange of ideas are considered conservative, and sites that are run like a concentration camp are considered liberal. Why is that?  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:30, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

==Move request==
Andy, can we move this [[Essay:Rich Man and Parable of Talents]] to [[Parable of the Talents]].  It looks like only minor changes would be needed for this to be a proper article. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 21:02, 21 August 2019 (EDT)

== Image upload request ==

Hello Andy, would you please upload [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Declaration_of_Independence_(1819),_by_John_Trumbull.jpg the vastly superior Commons version] of John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence painting to [[:File:Declaration of Independence.jpg]]? The file is protected, so I can't do it myself, and I have experienced technical difficulties trying to upload new versions of existing images in the past (see [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=File:Italy,_European_Parliament_election,_2019.png&action=edit&redlink=1 this] and [https://www.conservapedia.com/File:Italy,_2019_European_Parliament_election.png this]). --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:23, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
:Hoped that worked!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:31, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
::Thanks for doing it, but the CP file still looks blurry and poor (compare to the Commons link). This is the same problem I encountered. I wouldn't want to upload a new image since this one is linked in so many articles. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:33, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
:::I deleted the prior version.  Any better now?  It may be that the Commons link uses a large file to get the better resolution, but I'm reluctant to go to a larger file which might slow speed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:45, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
::::It's still showing the same version. I doubt file size is causing it, as the resolutions for the Italy maps I tried uploading a few months ago were the same. Overall, I think it's good to avoid using large file sizes, but for important and high-profile images like this, a clearer, quality image might be better. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:52, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
:::::I've encountered this problem before: upload to a new file but the old image persists.  So I uploaded to a separate file and inserted it into the template.  If you like the image in the template, we could then update the other links (less than 20) in just a few minutes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:21, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
::::::I like it, and we can update the remaining links -- once that's done, you could delete the old one if you want. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:24, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
:::::::Yeah, I've seen this before.  It seems that even after overwriting/deleting and replacing, that image name holds the original image's aspect ratio.  Using a different name is the way around it...I have not found a fix.  Perhaps it is fixed in newer versions of Media Wiki. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 22:29, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Not to detract from DavidB4's comment above, but in addition to the old file ([[:File:Declaration of Independence.jpg]]), please delete [[:File:76485685i79.jpg]], a redirect which has been protected. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:33, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

== Update MediaWiki, bots ==

I was wondering if MediaWiki could be updated. This version seems out of date.
As a site note, would it be possible to use bots to help stop vandalism? {{unsigned|ChickenHacker}}

== Yet one more unlock request ==

Hi, I hate to keep bothering you with these, but when you get the chance, would you please unlock [[:Template:Infobox person]]?  I would like to add some documentation to the template's info page, and perhaps expand the template itself with some more parameters.  Thank you! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 15:10, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

==American Progressivism==
Andy,  I would appreciate your yes/no about this.

[[Debate: Does Conservapedia need at least one single page devoted exclusively to American Progressivism?]] [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 20:15, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
:I think some context can be found here: [[Talk:Progressivism#Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 20:36, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

== Pro-choice? how about anti-life or pro-death? ==

Liberal rags like Wikipedia refuse to use the term pro-life, instead saying "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice." I think we should return the favor and use one of the two terms in the section title, since that's what they really are, as this video shows: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhcoLpBjhEU] [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 21:54, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

== Night mode problems ==

I have been having some problems with this 'night mode' [[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] told me about.  I am currently editing from in the GMT + 7 time zone, so I am unable to contribute sometimes. He told me that 'If this is a problem, you could contact User:Aschlafly. He might be willing to upgrade your account to get around this.' so I was wondering if you, being the owner of this site, could somehow find a way for me to edit during night mode. I understand if this is not possible at this time, as DavidB4 told me that upgrading my account may be necessary for me to edit during night mode, which I may or may not be worthy of right now. Please let me know what can be done as soon as possible. My only intention here is to contribute to this fantastic and trustworthy encyclopaedia as effectively as possible.

Many thanks, --[[User:Toby Chester|Toby Chester]] ([[User talk:Toby Chester|talk]]) 12:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

== Double redirect request ==

Hello Andy, would you please look at the newest comment here -- [[Talk:Allies]] -- and fix the double redirect on this protected redirect page? --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 11:03, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

== A request for a lock on [[Infant baptism]] ==

Andy, as I expressed on the talk page of [[Infant baptism]], during my research I found an abundance of virulent polemic online regarding the hot-button topic of infant baptism both ''pro'' and ''con'', enough to give me reason to humbly request that you please consider, if appropriate and reasonable, locking the main article, solely in order to avoid vandalism and distortion of the balance of presentation through subtle editing by opponents or proponents of the doctrine, to slant it more toward, or away from, a factually balanced treatment. I included both sides of the argument in the [[Infant baptism#References|reference notes]] of the body of the article and in the listing of [[Infant baptism#External links|External links]]. Constantly reverting the changes could be a persistent annoyance. Objections could be reserved to the article Talk page, with a relevant note saying so at the top of the page. Trusting your judgment. Peace be with you, now and for ever. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:59, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
: Locked as requested.  Will also put a message directing folks to the talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:01, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

==An election preview==
I think we killed two birds with one rock: we made [[Katie Hill]] the poster child for [[White supremacy]] and the [[Equality Act]]. Need to build these themes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:15, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
:IMO, a Nancy Pelosi staffer looked at our Katie Hill page, saw links to both White Supremacy and the Equality Act, called Hill into Pelosi's office, and Hill was gone before she even made it back to her own office. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:09, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

==Main page popular articles==
Could you add [[The New Colossus]], at least just for a few weeks.  [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 22:48, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
:Done as requested.  Thanks for the suggestion!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:56, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
::If you would like to de-list it from the popular list, it has been updated now.  Thanks for your help. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 11:33, 23 November 2019 (EST)
:::Replaced it with [[Samuel Adams]].  Thanks for the suggestion to make a change, and please make more in the future!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:46, 23 November 2019 (EST)

== Problem with Talk:Infant baptism ==

Andy, RobS on the [[Talk:Infant baptism]] page is beginning to be a real problem. I tried to be patient but it's getting out of hand. Please take a look and see if the Talk page too should be locked. I'm not certain one way or the other, but I don't think he is posting any thing useful anymore, just repeating the same argument. It ceases to be an example of vigorous debate. The whole page has become bloated. I tried to be fair and answer every objection. It seems to be utterly counterproductive. If you do lock it, it will remain an example of debate on the issue. As before I trust your judgment. I'm not going back to look. Quite frankly it's been hard on my bloodpressure. Peace be with you. Michael Heart. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:58, 3 November 2019 (EST)
:I'll take a look but the general policy is to leave talk pages unlocked.  You don't have to respond there and everyone knows that a talk page is merely a discussion that typically contains different viewpoints.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 10:58, 3 November 2019 (EST)
::Michael, you seem to have a tenuous relationship with the truth.  I called you out on this in January, [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier&diff=prev&oldid=1485333 here], where you had falsely claimed that your user page had been vandalized, and that you had arranged for it to be locked.
::And now you claim (4 sections above) that the infant baptism article has been vandalized.  Aside from a notice from Andy that it has been locked, and a very few edits today by Wikignome72, who, as an admin, can blow past any locks, the page has 331 revisions, '''every one of them by you'''.
::So now the discussion has, not surprisingly, moved to the talk page, and it is a very lively and robust discussion.  And you now want '''that''' locked?  That's not the way things are done on talk pages.  Perhaps you would rather do your writing on a blog someplace, that lets you control comments from other people.  I believe there are services on the internet, such as "blogspot", that let you do that.  You might want to contact one of the [[User:Conservative]] people about doing that.  But that isn't how things are done on talk pages on an open wiki.  Especially now that the locking of the article pages has moved everything to the talk page.
::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:29, 3 November 2019 (EST)

:::Michael, the above rant is by a user who has been repeatedly blocked.  Your edits are very welcome here and please ignore the rude tone above. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:35, 3 November 2019 (EST)

::::Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there is anything that Dataclarifier should or should not do.  I think the robust discussion on the talk page is fine, and none of it bothers me.  I apologize for anything that was considered rude.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:05, 3 November 2019 (EST)

I don't think the talk page should be locked. CP has editors of different theological viewpoints, and inability to reconcile those different viewpoints shouldn't be an excuse to stop discussion of them. And to be fair, the vast majority of the text on the talk page are comments from Dataclarifier, which is fine, but because of that, it's not fair to put all the blame on RobS for the long text on the talk page. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 15:08, 3 November 2019 (EST)
:And spamming a talk page is not discussion. Neither is removing other people's comments to remove them from context. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:37, 3 November 2019 (EST)
::In fact, the mainspace "Infant baptism" page should also be unlocked -- there was zero edit warring on it, so Dataclarifier didn't even have a reason for requesting protection. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 15:52, 3 November 2019 (EST)
:::He's put a lot of work into all his stuff. Most of his postings on talk really belong in Essay space if he doesn't want to be interrupted by argument or refutation. Many of these discussions then could be held on an Essay space talk page.

:::His basic argument is that infant baptism brings salvation, yet he's never defined what salvation is despite repeated requests. Consequently, the discussion strays off into numerous other topics.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:08, 3 November 2019 (EST)
:::A link could even be made from Infant baptism to his Essays. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:13, 3 November 2019 (EST)

Andy, I'm more grateful than I can express for your remark above regarding my edits. (I do disregard the rude tone of the "rant".) I had come back to mention that I discovered that other sites on infant baptism and other related "hot-button" topics have talk pages that have been archived one, two, three, even eight times, full of comments and venom responding to their topics. Accordingly, I ''withdraw'' my request that [[Talk:Infant baptism]] be locked, so that there will be more opportunity for others to speak up and further enliven the debate. Eventually I suppose an archive will be necessary. I am absenting myself from that Talk page. It just means that I won't be available to be baited any more, and will no longer be anyone's favorite target. That may put out the fire.  (Just take a look at my own talk page, at the remarks made at the bottom by RobSmith's "Suggestion", and my final definitive answer in response: [[User talk:Dataclarifier#Suggestion]].) ''Pax vobis'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 03:43, 5 November 2019 (EST)
:The mainspace "Infant baptism" page should be unprotected. There was absolutely no edit warring, and Dataclarifier dominated the page's edit history. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 07:59, 5 November 2019 (EST)
::Dataclarifier, you wrote: "Quite frankly it's been hard on my blood pressure." 

::You should keep in mind that if people want to find answers to an issue, there are tons of resources on the internet plus God gives wisdom/answers to those who humbly seek Him.  So if you see a page or two on the internet that you want to change, but cannot do so to your satisfaction, its certainly not the end of the world and certainly not worth getting your blood pressure up over. [[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 15:35, 5 November 2019 (EST)

:::Per RobSmith "Suggestion" on my talk page, I just created [[Debate: Infant baptism]] and moved into it most (not all) of the debate on the [[Talk:Infant baptism]] page, leaving intact on the original talk page at infant baptism the comments re the article, its structure and sources of information cited there, and posted a note redirecting all general comments on the topic to [[Debate: Infant baptism]]. I did the same on my own talk page. By the way, the blood pressure response was unexpected, and is entirely physiological and involuntary. I was surprised that it happened. I think my creation of the new debate page will be more useful. (I don't intend to contribute anything more to it.) --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:34, 5 November 2019 (EST)<br>(The "final definitive answer" that I posted on RobSmith's "Suggestion" entry on my Talk page, has also been included in the move of the debate from the [[Talk:Infant baptism]] page to [[Debate: Infant baptism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:11, 5 November 2019 (EST) - )
::::I was suggesting you place the original two lengthy sections on Protestantism versus Catholicism in one Article Essay space, minus the intervening comments, to preserve the original research. It just needs an appropriate title.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:03, 5 November 2019 (EST)
::::For example: [[Essay: Differing perspectives on infant baptism]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:25, 6 November 2019 (EST)

A few minutes ago I copied this entire posting to [[Debate: Infant baptism]] as relevant part of the whole general debate. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 08:33, 6 November 2019 (EST)

== Problem: Obsessive redundant repostings ==

RobSmith persists in reposting to [[Talk:Infant baptism]] the same edit already moved twice to [[Debate: Infant baptism]]. This seems rather obsessive. I moved his postings verbatim to the Debate page. He calls it spamming. I don't believe he will stop reposting the same comments again and again at [[Talk:Infant baptism]] and badgering me about the matter on my Talk page. Please look into the matter and do what you think appropriate. (Seems like this is proof that the main article needed to be proactively locked.) Thanks to you and all of the good Protestant editors for your own outstanding works on Conservapedia. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:00, 6 November 2019 (EST)
:''Do not remove '''other peoples''' ongoing discussions. That is a blockable offensive''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:03, 6 November 2019 (EST)

:The Talk page has 8,000 page views, your Debate page has 176, or 2%. I can appreciate you trying to hide a "debate" you lost badly, but removing ''other peoples'' ongoing comments and discussions, who have committed no site policy violations, is a no no. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:09, 6 November 2019 (EST)

:Perhaps we need a page on [[Wikietiquette]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:13, 6 November 2019 (EST)

::The same reposting was just now repeated at [[Talk:Infant baptism]]. RobSmith's POV has been preserved now four times on [[Debate: Infant baptism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:15, 6 November 2019 (EST)<br>[[Talk:Infant baptism]] clearly directs all debate on doctrine to [[Debate: Infant baptism]]. It isn't hidden. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:24, 6 November 2019 (EST)
:::RobSmith imposed a block of my IP and Dataclarifier ID in response to my moving of his doctrinal debate to the Debate page where it is more appropriate. (Block now expired) <br>I have never deleted or removed his comments from Conservapedia. Nor have I blocked him to prevent debate. In addition he has reposted again verbatim the same reposted doctrinal debate argument at the [[Talk:Infant baptism]] page. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:59, 6 November 2019 (EST)
::::There are three other editors besides myself engaged in discussion in the two subsections thaT you have removed several times now; when an editor engaged in a discussion comes to reply, they do not know where to find it. Please, show some etiquette and do not interfere with other editors ongoing discussions. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:05, 6 November 2019 (EST)

Andy, this entire encounter with the adversary has been a real faith builder and a privilege to experience. This has not been my only one. I don't make light of it by any means. Thank you for your supportive comment above. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:55, 8 November 2019 (EST)

:Dataclarifier, we live in a post [[Protestant Reformation]] period where Protestantism is growing rapidly in the world. 

:You can't pretend that Protestants/Protestantism and their arguments don't exist and move the opposition's arguments to a debate page. This is unacceptable.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 14:16, 8 November 2019 (EST)
::You can't move doctrinal debate about [[infant baptism]] on the articles talk page to a debate page. Please stop doing this. It is impolite, must end and it is counterproductive. [[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 14:47, 8 November 2019 (EST)
:::Copying text to another page without removing it from the page copied is not a move. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:00, 9 November 2019 (EST)

== error in link to external source needs minor correction ==

A colon needs to be replaced by a hyphen in the following link at locked article [[Infant baptism]]. <br> '''12:48.htm''' should have been '''12-48.htm''' (I can't get to it.)
:error https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/12:48.htm
:correction https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/12-48.htm
Thanks, Andy. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:31, 9 November 2019 (EST)

== Conservative of the Year 2019 ==

I have created the [[Conservative of the Year 2019]] article. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 14:59, 9 November 2019 (EST)
:Terrific start!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:05, 9 November 2019 (EST)
::Would it be appropriate to post the article on the main page until a winner is announced? --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 00:00, 21 November 2019 (EST)

== Bilski v. Doll ==

Hello Andy, I see that the [[Bilski v. Doll]] article has not been updated. I tried to update it, but it's too much of a mess. The two Wikipedia articles on the case ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski 1],[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos 2]) don't have the same name as the case, so it seems to me that the situation is relatively complicated. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 16:43, 9 November 2019 (EST)

:I improved both.  Please let me know if further edits would be helpful.  Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:10, 9 November 2019 (EST)

== Scribes (Bible) ==

I just completed a new article [[Scribes (Bible)]]. I hope it's worthy of Conservapedia. ''Pax vobis'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:29, 11 November 2019 (EST)
:Wow, that's fabulous! Very well done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:53, 11 November 2019 (EST)
:I did a major revision with additional material and division with subheadings for improvement. Includes section on calling scribes "my father" (Mt 23:9). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:24, 12 November 2019 (EST)
::Looks even better now.  I did a minor punctuation improvement.  Terrific work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:38, 12 November 2019 (EST)

== Technical display problem at [[Religion#Development of religion]] ==

Just a "heads up" alert. Recently, every time I have accessed the article [[Religion]] (simply to read it) there has been a display flutter and blackout of a portion of the article at [[Religion#Development of religion]]. The section reads fine in edit mode—no problem there. All other parts of the article remain stable in page display. I am unable to determine if the fault is with my own computer. Tech error? Virus? No other parts of Conservapedia have presented this difficulty. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:16, 15 November 2019 (EST)
:I have observed so such problem, on the religion page or any other.  I would recommend that you reboot your computer, perform a comprehensive virus and malware check (installing the necessary antivirus software if necessary; I recommend Norton), restarting your web browser, and trying again.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 10:57, 15 November 2019 (EST)
::Sam, just now no problem. (I have had Norton for more than 2 years now). My internet server is through a land line. My own tech says it's probably the area I live in, and fact that I'm near "end of the line". Coincidental. Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:05, 1 December 2019 (EST)

== Eros ==

Just created article [[Eros]] from already available material in other articles here. I assume you don't need me to notify you every time I create another article. Thanks for all you do, Andy, for your efforts to present unbiased truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 03:47, 15 November 2019 (EST)

== My article on Hong Kong is published ==

My article on Hong Kong was published [https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/hong-kongs-dark-night-of-the-soul-a-narrative-by-an-american-ex-reporter/ in Hong Kong-based ''Dim Sum Daily'']. It has been up only a couple of hours and it already has a thousand page views. Could you put on MPR and help it along? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:14, 24 November 2019 (EST)
:Good article. I hope you continue making first hand written accounts in a series. (you don't have to be at ground zero for all events, just cover the issues involved). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:06, 24 November 2019 (EST)
::My follow up story has been published in the ''[https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/hong-kongs-long-fight-for-freedom-and-democracy/ Seattle Times]''. ''Dim Sum Daily'' toned me down a bit, but the editor at ''Seattle Times'' played up the anti-communist/pro-democracy angle. I submitted various pictures to both newspapers, but both editors selected the same picture of me in a mask. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:32, 14 December 2019 (EST)
:::Tremendous work.  Very well done!  Posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:11, 14 December 2019 (EST)

==Gouverneur Morris==
Just thought I would mention, the Westin states that ''"Our hotel takes its name from the state's first Governor"''[https://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/ewrwm-the-westin-governor-morris-morristown/]  [[Gouverneur Morris]] was never a ''Governor'' that I am aware of. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 13:59, 8 December 2019 (EST)
:You're right!  Great catch!!!!  I'll fix it if you haven't yet done so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:04, 8 December 2019 (EST)
::Can we just remove it altogether?  It's about another person altogether.  What value does it add to the article? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 14:51, 8 December 2019 (EST)
:::Moved it to another entry, but feel free to object to that new home for it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:36, 8 December 2019 (EST)

== request for restoration of possibly unitended deletion of a section of an article ==


Andy, the following section was deleted ''after'' you locked the text of [[Infant baptism]]. See [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Infant_baptism&oldid=1584071 earlier version 1584071]. It was based on historical information I had found online re the topic. Could you please restore it? Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 15:04, 15 December 2019 (EST)
:Andy, I am 100% positive that Tertullian did not indicate what Dataclarifier says he did. Please do not grant this request. 

:Dataclarifier wanted this article locked after he put various material in the article. On a wiki, the dialetical method (The dialectical method, is at base a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments) and civil discourse are important - especially on matters where there are competing theological camps. The [[infant baptism]] article has been a trainwreck as far as this occuring. And unfortunately, I don't see things turning around anytime soon. 

:When I got involved in the article [[Petrine Primacy]], we managed to hammer out an article without too much rancor, etc. But right now and for the foreseeble future, I do not have time to be a referee or a big contributor to [[infant baptism]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:42, 15 December 2019 (EST)

::Simply FYI relevant to comment by Conservative, I noticed the following [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Infant_baptism&diff=1600461&oldid=1584071 Diff]. The online sources supporting the deleted segment in ref notes were also removed with the deletion. I understand and sympathize with Conservative's lack of sufficient opportunity to improve the balance of the article. I am in a similar bind. I only had come back to consult the article, not to critique it. That's why the appeal here from both of us for your judgment in the matter. Faithfully yours, --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:45, 15 December 2019 (EST)
:::I moved my reply to Dataclarifier from my user talk page message area to the [[Infant baptism]] talk page area. It is located [https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Infant_baptism#Dataclarifier.27s_post_on_my_talk_page HERE] now. 

:::The battle between Dataclarifier and Robsmith is kind of a rhetorical [[Thirty Years' War]].  At this juncture in my life, I am endeavoring to avoid internet drama - albeit not always successfully. But after responding to an atheist on my talk page via "SS American Religion: Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead" about the eventual triump over secularization in the USA, I decided to renew my pledge. One thing for certain, even atheists admit that the [[atheist movement]] is dead or dying (see: [[Decline of the atheist movement]]).  I tango and cha-cha-cha on the grave of the atheist movement! Olé! Olé! Olé! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:05, 15 December 2019 (EST)

===Earliest historical mention of infant baptism: A.D. 185===

The earliest explicit mention of infant baptism is found A.D. 185 in [[Irenaeus]], ''Against Heresies'', Book II, Chapter 22:4.<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 22) - Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org)] ''scroll down to paragraph 4''.</ref>
{{cquote|For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are '''born again''' to God — '''infants''', and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. (<small>''boldface emphasis added''</small>)}}This '''born again''' is a direct reference to John 3:3-5:{{cquote|<sup>3</sup> Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.<br><sup>4</sup> Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?<br><sup>5</sup> Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and ''of'' the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. <br>—[[King James Bible]] (KJV)}}

The Greek New Testament word for "man" here in John is '''τις''' ''tis'' "anyone".<ref>See [http://biblehub.com/greek/5100.htm Strong's number ''5100''. '''τις''' ''tis'' "''some'' or ''any'' person or object:— any ''one''.]</ref> 

See [http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3-5.htm interlinear text of John 3:5]. No human being is excluded. Age is not mentioned.
=====references=====
{{reflist}}
.
.

Thanks, Andy. Hope you have a wonderful Christmas. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 15:12, 15 December 2019 (EST)

== Mysterious duplication of entire article onpage ==

Andy, just "eyeball" and check out the following diffs. [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Infant_baptism&diff=1605868&oldid=1605866]
[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Infant_baptism&diff=1606641&oldid=1606483]. My own check of the page's View history does not show who made the duplication. I am certain I didn't do it. Can you determine who was responsible?

Back when I first asked for the article to be locked, I thought something like this, or some other form of mischief, would happen. Be assured I'm not asking for it to be locked now. I can check it myself from time to time. Thanks. Have a blessed Christmas. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 07:29, 21 December 2019 (EST)

:Anyone can check things like this, you do not need to enlist the site administrators's help.  Just look at the page history, the way I did just now.  The extreme duplication to which you refer was made at 10:12, 17 December 2019‎, by RobSmith.  That was 69 edits ago.  All 68 edits since then were made by you.  I can't pass judgment on why RobSmith made the change, though I would guess that it was an accident, of the sort that we all make.  His edit comment was "organized churches, not individual Christians".

:The addition "and the danger of death before baptism", added by you at 14:06, 18 December 2019, is safely in the current version, so no further action should be needed.  But when you repair Rob's changes, be sure that is preserved.  In fact, you will need to check that all of your edits since then are intact.  By the way, Rob's accidental change had the effect of precisely doubling the size of the article, from 184,252 bytes to 368,504 bytes.  Whether it was a precise duplication of the content is something I haven't checked; I would suggest that you do that.  And then be sure that your recent 68 edits, including the the one about "and the danger of death before baptism", are intact.

:I occasionally find myself needing to track down situations like this; it's very annoying.  Good luck.  Please do not assume malice.

:And have a blessed Christmas.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 10:09, 21 December 2019 (EST)

== More night mode problems ==

I am still having some problems with the Conservapedia night mode. I am still editing from in the GMT + 7 time zone, which is becoming increasingly bothersome for me. You did promote your account to SkipCaptcha privileges back in October, but I am still unable to contribute for a significant portion of the day. You said that 'overnight editing privileges can be added after there are more edits from your account'. The number of edits that required for me to gain overnight editing privileges was never specified, but I have frequently made numerous contributions to this encyclopaedia. In short, I am requesting that my account be promoted to overnight editing privileges, or at least for the number of edits required for me to receive the promotion be revealed. I have enjoyed my time so far on this encyclopaedia, despite the time zone problems. Overnight editing privileges would be a huge help, and allow me to contribute to Conservapedia more effectively. Thank you.--[[User:Toby Chester|Toby Chester]] ([[User talk:Toby Chester|talk]]) 11:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
:That's right, I've been on this site for a long time and I still have problems with Night mode. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 22:33, 6 January 2020 (EST)

== Night mode edit request ==

I wish to be able to edit when CP is in night mode. It's frustrating to be locked out until 10:00am, or in the case of today, hours after night mode is supposed to be over. I hope you can be sure that I won't vandalize the site. Just for curiosity, what was going on, anyway? [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 17:15, 17 January 2020 (EST)

== Page name blacklist issue ==

Hi Andy,<br />
It looks like [[user:BHathorn]] is have an issue where he is trying to create a couple pages which are being blocked by the page name blacklist. Would you please take a look? See: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany#Question_about_a_permission_error]]<br />
Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:12, 19 January 2020 (EST)

== Updating information, etc. ==

Hi Andy, I was just wondering, if you have the time, can you look through my edits just to make sure all the information I added is accurate and consistent? I'm just concerned that some content I added could've been worded better, was outdated, or inaccurate, etc. In addition, how hard is it to become an administrator? I saw the Conservapedia [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|Guidelines]] page but it wasn't specific on the requirements to become an administrator. Also, just wanted to mention, thank you for founding [[Conservapedia]]; I stumbled across this site about half a year ago, and by now, with this great site and with other organizations with similar idealogies, I'm a proud conservative! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] 8:42, 23 January 2020

== RobSmith threat to delete balanced article ==

Andy: RobSmith intends to delete an article without any evident justification for his charge of "sarcastic mockery". I did what I could to present a factual article at [[Burning at the stake, Biblical pretext for]], now simply [[Burning at the stake]]. I responded with some adjustments in the article. See my simple explanation as a response on the [[Talk:Burning at the stake|talk page]], along with this text that Rob posted on my [[User talk:Dataclarifier]] {{quotation|Ridiculous arguments<br>
If you want to continue ridiculous arguments ''without'' engaging on the Talk page of [[Burning at the stake, Biblical pretext for]], I'll just delete the page as "sarcastic mockery" of God's word. You need to engage other editors directly on Talk when legitimate questions are raised - without spamming blocks of text and redundant links. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:57, 4 February 2020 (EST)}}Whatever you decide. Peace be with you. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 02:17, 4 February 2020 (EST)

:The user is in gross violation of Conservapedia Commandment #1, copying text from and citing Wikipedia. See [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Infant_baptism&curid=155675&diff=1619613&oldid=1617953 here] and [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Burning_at_the_stake&diff=1619638&oldid=1619635 here]. It's a pattern I've detected on just two pages.  [[Burning at the stake, Biblical pretext for]] is sarcastic mockery of God's word, until I renamed it. But he continues to insert sarcastic mockery of Christianity cut n' pasted directly from Wikipedia. Some of the problems could be fixed with rational good faith engagement with other editors on discussion pages, however the user is in the habit of spamming talk pages with massive blocks of text and redundant links, some of which is cut n' pasted from Wikipedia and elsewhere.
:I'd suggest the user take some of that plagiarized text from Wikipedia and simply rewrite objectionable portions, but he seems more interested in using biased, non-Christian, and anti-Christian content he borrows from Wikipedia, and filling CP up with it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 02:37, 4 February 2020 (EST)

::Andy, take a look at his edit summary {{quotation|01:04, 4 February 2020‎ RobSmith - I won't follow you with a pooper-scooper always) (undo)}} This is self-explanatory. Is this harassment? The information I posted to which he so strongly objects is corroborated independently by the several independent Pew Research articles et al. You know my work. I post nothing that I have not been able to verify. As to the above, I have no wish to be baited with anti-Catholic antagonism. That is why I don't respond to his attempts to "engage" with interminable interactions, and limit my response to simple, factual statements.
::What did you think of the recent Democratic and Republican performance in the Senate? The win of the Chiefs at the Superbowl 2 February was an exciting addition to my 73rd birthday 1 February. As always, Peace be with you. Michael --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 02:52, 4 February 2020 (EST)
:::The information was moved to Talk. It's salvageable.  But I won't re-write and clean up your mess. I did enough on mainspace [[Burning at the stake]]. If you need input and help, engage there. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 02:56, 4 February 2020 (EST)

::::Andy: RobSmith just now threatened an [[edit-war]]. {{quotation|You can earn yourself a temporary block for reverting a Sysop with the rollback key. I;m going to rollback your edits a second time on Burning at the stake. Meet me on the talk page to discuss changes or enjoy a temporary block for edit warring. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:08, 4 February 2020 (EST)}}--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 03:11, 4 February 2020 (EST)
:::::No, I explained you can enjoy a temporary block for edit warring. You need to engage in good faith at [[Talk:Burning_at_the_stake#Rewrite-it]] to fix the content you cut n' pasted from Wikipedia. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 03:15, 4 February 2020 (EST)
:::::It would not be hard, at all, to fix the content you cut n' pasted from Wikipedia. It requires simple good faith editing. But here you are, spamming Andy's talk page with redundant postings.
:::::I can make simple suggestions to objectionable material - there. But you must engage me there.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 03:22, 4 February 2020 (EST)

::::::See my good faith response at [[Talk:Burning at the stake#Dataclarifier response]] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 16:12, 4 February 2020 (EST)
:::::::RobSmith has removed subheading '''Dataclarifier response''' from the link I provided, so you can't access it. Go to [[Talk:Burning at the stake#Rewrite-it]] and scroll down to my now untitled response. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:20, 4 February 2020 (EST)

== I made a mistake ==

I created an article for [[Kendrick Brothers]] but the brothers should have a lower case 'b'. They do have an organization known as Kendrick Brothers Productions with a captial 'B' but I started a stub article about the brothers themselves. Are you able to fix this? Thank you.--[[User:StFrancisThames|StFrancisThames]] ([[User talk:StFrancisThames|talk]]) 19:44, 2 March 2020 (EST)

:Another moved it.  I just promoted your account to SkipCaptcha.  Welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:49, 2 March 2020 (EST)

== Template creation permission request ==

Hi Andy, I'm seeking permission to a create a template titled "Template:Republican establishment". I know I mentioned it [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Template_permission_request|here]] and again [[Talk:United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2020|here]], but RobSmith seemed unsure about it, so I was wondering what you would think. Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 13:09, 14 March 2020 (EDT)
:Sounds like a good idea.  I've created it and you can edit it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:15, 14 March 2020 (EDT)
::Thanks Andy! Just wondering though, where's the template? I can't find it... --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 15:17, 14 March 2020 (EDT)
:::Sorry!  I thought I had created it, but I had not put anything in it so nothing was created after all.  This time it contains a tiny period, which you can replace: [[Template:Republican establishment]].  Enjoy!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:06, 14 March 2020 (EDT)
::::Yes! Thank you very much, Andy! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 16:38, 14 March 2020 (EDT)

== Great image to quickly upload ==

Hi Andy, can you upload [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hydroxychloroquine.png this image] into a file? I think that this would be a great addition for the featured article on [[Vladimir Zelenko]] as well as to use for [[Hydroxychloroquine|this article]] as well. Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 13:30, 28 March 2020 (EDT)
:Done as requested!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:45, 28 March 2020 (EDT)

::Thank you Andy! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 13:48, 28 March 2020 (EDT)

== So I just watched this video... ==

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s13qZnKdLQ8&feature=emb_title Phil Donahue really seems to be sticking to the zero-sum game fallacy thinking that your mom wanted women to "stay in the home" when she only said that women tend to be happier there. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:19, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

==Western Civilization to the rescue==

Hi, Andy. 
I'm interested in how America and "Yankee Ingenuity" will overcome the coronavirus. The UK and Israel (part of Western Civ) may also help. But I don't expect much from the socialist countries or dictatorships. I'm also watching progress on the [[USS Theodore Roosevelt]], an aircraft carrier with a coronavirus outbreak. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:55, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

:Ed, it's great hearing from you!  Hope all is well.  Ironically, China and India have welcomed innovation in treating the [[coronavirus]] more than [[Democratic]] governors here have, such as [[Andrew Cuomo]] who is hoarding [[hydroxychloroquine]] rather than allowing it to be dispensed widely to patients.  Reminds me of the greater freedom in [[communist]] [[China]] in being able to criticize the [[theory of evolution]] than is allowed by many officials here.  Oh well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:32, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

::Ed: included in that basic premise is the structural flaw of [[single party]] [[socialism]] - a system (as advocated by Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, ''et al'') without [[checks and balances]]. 
::I see two narratives emerging on the origins of global economic meltdown caused by coronavirus: (1) the CCP was negligent in its corruption and greed by not alerting the world of the pandemic so as not to disrupt the tourism trade in Wuhan during the Chinese New Year travel holiday (as the leftist mayor of New Orleans didn't want to disrupt Mardi Gras celebrations, either); and (2) the CCP issued a bioweapon attack in reprisal to trade tariffs which threatened the CCP's hold on power; this is the more conspiratorial narrative which the CCP has already countered with [[whataboutism]] and the US military.

::The CCP's fake news allies in the United States are already preparing the ground for the next narrative phase: the "factual"evidence that an authoritarian socialist regime had only 3,000 deaths using harsh containment methods ''vs.'' the chaotic and freewheeling United States which has over 4,000 deaths when the pandemic first hit shows the superiority of the socialist system.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:11, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

::Speaking of Cuomo, can you please post the source about Cuomo hoarding that drug and not distributing it throughout New York on the main page? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 14:30, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

:::Just posted the link as requested.  The clinical trial did not start on time as Cuomo promised in New York, either.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:10, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

::::Thanks, though I was actually referring more to this news item: "Dem New York Gov. Cuomo stockpiles and withholds hydroxychloroquine such that coronavirus patients are unable to get their prescriptions filled in some parts of the State. " [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:46, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

:::::[[Dem]] Gov. [[Andrew Cuomo]] has essentially limited the dispensing of [[hydroxychloroquine]] for [[coronavirus]] to his slow, small clinical trial,[https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/governors-ban-drugs-for-covid-19-treatment-after-president-trump-mentions-them-KMprYd1L9ky0EPs90PeG6Q] and I heard confirmation of the difficulty of patients obtaining the life-saving medication from a presentation by a New York physician.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:28, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

== Modifying [[Template:Officeholder/senator]] ==

Hi Andy, can you modify/improvise [[Template:Officeholder/senator]] as I mentioned [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Improvising_Template:Officeholder.2Fsenator...|here]]? I was really hoping that a sysop would be able to do it as the template is locked as well as the fact that I barely understand template source codes. Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 11:59, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
:I unprotected it for you to edit as you think best.  Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:46, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

::Thanks Andy! I do hope I can figure it out... --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 12:51, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

:::Success! While I'm not sure how to make the function “required” in the same sense with all the other functions, I did manage to use three separate optional functions, where whenever one is used in the template, the other two functions are simply left blank. Since I tested the updated version and it works fine, I think you can re-protect the template now. Thank you Andy! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 13:20, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

::::I should specify one issue with the way I modified the template; if the function is used more than once out of all three options, then more than one of the options out of “Senior”, “Junior”, and “Former” can show up due to the combinatorials of all three. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 13:29, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

:::::Oops, never mind. I just tested it, and apparently my worry wasn't the case. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 13:33, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

::::::Nice, thanks for doing that, Liberaltears! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 16:16, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

:::::::Yep, no problem! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 16:17, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

== Mainpage: Right ==

Is there a URL associated with that recent news item? I read today [https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/04/new_york_city_is_lying_about_chinese_virus_death_rates.html?utm_source=whatfinger] and there appears to be widespread fraud in NY. --Jpatt 14:15, 3 April 2020 (EDT)
:I added the link to the country-by-country and state-by-state data.  But the ''American Thinker'' makes a valid point, too.  Thanks for mentioning it, and great to hear from you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:07, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

== Hiding a revision from view... ==

Hi Andy, I was wondering if you could fully oversight (hide) the vandalized revisions on [[Wikipedia|this page]] and [[China|this page]]. While the vandal user names were hidden from view, DavidB4 said that he couldn't fully oversight the revisions from view due to an error, as mentioned [[User_talk:DavidB4#Hiding_a_revision_from_view...|here]]. I'm really hoping that all evidence of the vandalism can be hidden from view due to the seriousness of the matter. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 17:53, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

== Added a question ==

Hi Andy,
I would like to start a page on mediocrity which disuses the subject and how it has been caused by liberals. However, when I went to go start the page, I saw it was previously created but you removed it during a mass removal of pages created by a certain user. I am not sure about the details behind this user, but I wondering if you have a problem with me creating this page up again? --[[User:YankeeDoodleDandy|YankeeDoodleDandy]] ([[User talk:YankeeDoodleDandy|talk]]) 15:18, 5 April 2020 (EDT)
:No problem at all if you create it again.  Please create and add to it as you think best.  Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:22, 5 April 2020 (EDT)

Thank You Andy just wanted to make sure it was okay with you --[[User:YankeeDoodleDandy|YankeeDoodleDandy]] ([[User talk:YankeeDoodleDandy|talk]]) 15:42, 5 April 2020 (EDT)

== Permission requests for several template creations... ==

Hi Andy, I would like to request permission to create the following templates:

*Template:Officeholder/lieutenant governor
*Template:Officeholder/state senator
*Template:Democrat establishment
--[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 14:49, 12 April 2020 (EDT)

:Please do!  Those would be terrific templates.  Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:52, 12 April 2020 (EDT)

::Thank you Andy! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 14:53, 12 April 2020 (EDT)

==Coronavirus protests==

Hello Andy, I have been looking at these Coronavirus protests that have been springing up all across the country, and I was wondering, how often did Phyllis go to protests or organize them?  I am pretty sure she organized ERA amendment protests, but could you give me more information if you have any? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 20:16, 17 April 2020 (EDT)
:My mother Phyllis often organized protests like these!  Thanks for asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:29, 17 April 2020 (EDT)
::It's my pleasure.  I first started attending protests in 2010 at the Tea Parties, and as I mentioned earlier in the year, I also attended the 2020 March for Life.  Now that you have confirmed this, could you provide any more information?  Maybe she wrote about it in one of her many books or are there photos that you could point to?  What could take me considerable time to locate could take you 10 or 20 minutes, or maybe even less. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 10:16, 18 April 2020 (EDT)
:::Perhaps the first photo in her entry here ([[Phyllis Schlafly]]) is an example?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:38, 23 April 2020 (EDT)
::I recall it like it was yesterday. Someone asked Phyllis about [[NOW]]. She responded with something like "they wouldn't exist if they weren't getting federal money". Her organization was entirely grassroots. I instantly became a believer.  IOWs, in 1979 the US was approaching 10% unemployment and the federal government was spending money on on anti-family, divisive and social engineering programs like NOW. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 10:24, 24 April 2020 (EDT)
:::Wow, Rob, thanks for sharing that!  They should have had some mention of government funding of the [[Leftist]] groups in the ''[[Mrs. America]]'' miniseries about STOP [[Equal Rights Amendment|ERA]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:14, 24 April 2020 (EDT)

== Speedy image upload request ==

Hi Andy, I'd like to request the quick upload of [https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/200/300/MattInnis.jpeg this image] ([https://ballotpedia.org/Matt_Innis source page here]) into a file (fair use license, I believe), with the small black space on the top and bottom cropped off. Since [[Matt Innis]] is a [[Republican]] running for U.S. Senate from [[Nebraska]] to challenge [[establishment]] anti-Trumper [[Ben Sasse]] and the primary is less than a month away, I'm making this special request (similar to the previous one on [[hydroxychloroquine]]) largely due to a long backlog of image requests in [[CP:IUR]]. Thank you Andy! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 21:18, 17 April 2020 (EDT)
:Uploading the image now ...--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:20, 17 April 2020 (EDT)

::Yes! Thank you very much Andy, I really appreciate it! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 22:25, 17 April 2020 (EDT)

== Block of RobSmith and VargasMilan ==

Andy, thanks for your note my talk page 25 Feb at [[User talk:Dataclarifier#Unjustified block]]. I have blocked RobSmith and VargasMilan. Please believe me that I have not done this lightly. See details at [[User talk:Dataclarifier#Blocked: RobSmith and VargasMilan]]. I appreciate your work and trust your judgment in the matter. Thanks. Stay Healthy. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 16:38, 3 May 2020 (EDT)
:::Update: The original link I provided was altered by RobSmith. It can be accessed at [[Talk/Dataclarifier/Archive 01#Blocked (past tense): RobSmith and VargasMilan]] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 07:51, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
::::Huh? I altered a link? Provide a diff or it never happened. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 13:32, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::See the diff at: <br> https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Burning_at_the_stake&diff=prev&oldid=1619849 <br> See also the following text at [[User talk:Aschlafly#RobSmith threat to delete balanced article]] <small> 
::::::See my good faith response at [[Talk:Burning at the stake#Dataclarifier response]] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 16:12, 4 February 2020 (EST)
:::::::RobSmith has removed subheading '''Dataclarifier response''' from the link I provided, so you can't access it. Go to [[Talk:Burning at the stake#Rewrite-it]] and scroll down to my now untitled response. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:20, 4 February 2020 (EST)</small>
::::: See also the following altering diff defeating direct link to [[User talk:Dataclarifier#Blocked: RobSmith and VargasMilan]]: <br> https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier&diff=1644391&oldid=1644390
::::: --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 06:34, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::: See also this RobSmith alteration of my subpage respectfully titled "Administrative comments" which he turned into a ridiculously trivialized "Sandbox" — "Creating Sandbox for User:Dataclarifier" <br> https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier/Administrator_comments&action=history <br> --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:06, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::You never answered a simple, good faith question and created a new discussion thread loaded with spam. You are spamming and trolling right now on Andy's discussion page, which justifiably could result in removal of your comments and a short term block. Please stop. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 14:40, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::See [[Conservapedia:Trolling]]:
:::::*'''''employing redundant arguments intended to occupy and waste the time, efforts, or energies of other users or to distract them from productive editing and making mainspace article contributions.'''''
:::::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 14:48, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
::::::I can't confirm nor deny Dataclarifier's claims regarding that particular situation, though I will mention I had to deal with similar stuff from RobSmith as well. Namely, a few times after I added in a reply, he while adding his reply tended to delete my posts. When adding my reply back in, I also demand that he stop removing my replies. Here's one example: https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1441930 He hasn't done that in a while, though given my experience, I won't necessarily claim Dataclarifier was off the mark in his accusation. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 21:50, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::If I ever remove a posting it is either a mistake or somebody swore or said something innappropriate. Your diff looks like an error. Sorry.  In Dataclarifier's case, it's hard to discern what he's talking about. I think he now is referencing a time he created a subheading entitled ==My response== or something, and spammed the page with extraneous material. I removed the subheading cause I think it was suppose to be a response to a question, and frankly, I'm tired of him ignoring questions and spamming pages. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 05:05, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::In fact, I don't believe I have ever removed a posting of Dataclarifer (except for an unnecessary subhead he created) or deleted a page. I did one page move and rewrote certain sections on [[Burning at the stake]], which if I recall he was satisfied with.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 05:12, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

:The way I see it, this dispute has its origins with the infant baptism article, and differences in application between Catholic and Protestant denominations.  Since this is an encyclopedia, the article should clearly state "Roman Catholic Church doctrine states..." or "Lutheran Church states..." etc. on this subject where there are differences.  But it should also be very, very clear if those differences ''conflict'' with what the Bible states, then the Bible is the final authority and trumps everything else.  People are just going to have to accept that one small fact. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 16:39, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
::The problem with using the whole "Bible has final say" argument is that there are technically two different bibles (and that's not even counting the King James version) thanks to Martin Luther removing six books from the Bible (including Maccabees), so the Catholic Bible actually has SIX additional books. Maybe if there was literally only one bible, with literally NOTHING removed from it, that solution would work. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:56, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

:::Fine. Those points belong in separate articles or Essay space. My immediate problem is with an editor who claims "biblical authority" then  denies biblical authority on Talk pages and attributes the Epistles of Paul to Satan.  Many of these articles carry the Template:Christianity. I've asked this editor several times to clarify these mainspace contributions and he either ignores these questions completely, or spams the discussion with off-topic, plagiarized, contradictory and redundant blocks of hypertext and external links.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 19:18, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

::::People can (ab)use the Bible as an excuse for a number of ridiculous evils, such as [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Burning_at_the_stake&oldid=1619615 burning at the stake]. (Because the catholic church said so, it must be true, right?) Twist in enough, and just like the MSM, you can make your source text say whatever you want it to. 
::::In a more mild sense, the many denominations we now have, exist because they interpenetrate the scripture differently from the others. A clash of religion is inevitable in a project like this, but as Karajou said, I think the best way is to state the various conflicting views from a fairly neutral standpoint in this case. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 19:37, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

:::::Because someone claimed in the 12th century a "Biblical pretext" for burning at the stake, and was in gross error, is no reason to promote a "Biblical pretext for burning at the stake" in the 21st century which is accessible to Google search engines and homeschoolers. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 20:06, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

=== Potential bullying: threat of blocking ===

Andy, RobSmith says welcome back on my talk page. I am content with having made a strong statement with my own action of blocking. (I was not so naïve as to actually believe an infinite block of him and VargasMilan would last very long.)  

He now continues to threaten me on my talk page with the same tone of domination unchanged. If I refuse to respond to him re contentious topics, he may decide again to slap another block on my account. He gives me no reason to believe otherwise.

You have expressed both here on your talk page and on my own talk page the freedom of contributors on Conservapedia to make the prudential choice of exercising a decisive refusal to engage in contentious continuing debates with other editors and administrators. <br> However, shortly after you gave me that advice (assurance to know that I do not have to respond to any comments) and subsequently after I chose to exercise that option with RobSmith and said on a couple of talk pages that I would no longer respond, and that I had said all I could say, he kept demanding additional response, and finally inflicted a short term block for my refusing to get ensnared again. What is to prevent this again if I choose not to respond? Especially since both our positions have been more than adequately expressed, and I might say "redundantly". All I could do was reiterate what I had already said, and back it up with substantial documentation. He insists that my completely substantiated responses are "incomprehensible" and "say nothing".

Now that I have found that you removed the more extensive unjustified intentional [21 Feb to 1 May] block by VargasMilan on 25 Feb, I simply ask you for the standard Conservapedia freedom enjoyed by others here to legitimately refuse to further respond to RobSmith or others like him without a threat of blocking for exercising that fully available option. Without such assurance, I see no real possibility of continued involvement in contributing to Conservapedia, even though you expressed hope that I would continue, because I could be blocked again for exercising legitimate refusal to respond, for "who knows how long?". Please answer. Either here or on my talk page. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:47, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
:"''He now continues to threaten me''" - this is simply a pointed lie. I suggest User:Dataclarifier begin building good faith with other users.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 20:29, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
:Secondly, Dataclarifier [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADataclarifier received two blocks], one for 10 minutes and one for an hour after undoing the actions of a Sysop, i.e. edit warring with a Sysop. The worst that can happen to Dataclarifier in the future, if he refuses to defend controversial edits on Talk, is a revert of edits and page protect to deny access. 

:Nowhere was Dataclarifer ever "threatened" with a block for refusal to answer good faith questions. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 21:42, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

=== Archive and Administrator comments ===

Andy, to handle the current controversy on my talk page, I set up two pages: an Archive of all that has been submitted to this date, and a special "Administrator comments" page where I can move special commentary from any administrators regarding my work and responses posted on my regular talk page. I posted an info notice re this on my regular talk page. Peace be with you. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:25, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

The original link I provided was altered by RobSmith. It can be accessed at [[Talk/Dataclarifier/Archive 01#Blocked (past tense): RobSmith and VargasMilan]] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 07:48, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:You are spamming redundant postings again. And also spamming by creating unnecessary new subheadings. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 13:58, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

=== Administrator deletion of content from a User's Own Talk page in violation of Conservapedia Guidelines ===

Andy see [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier&action=history Revision history of "User talk:Dataclarifier"]. Without cause RobSmith has unjustifiably vandalized my own talk page, deleted material from it and sabotaged the pages I set up as stated in the posting above by changing them and deleting material there. He is violating the Guidelines. I also found that I was unable to restore the lost material from older copies of the pages. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 16:55, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

:What does that prove? That you added a category to your talk page 3 times and [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1644772 on 4th one] you got a warning?  Look below. Even Andy's talk page is not included in any Categories. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 17:06, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

::I didn't add the category. Until I saw your messages, I was unaware of it's presence on the page. You didn't even give me a chance to respond before you blocked me. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:28, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:::I told you to quit spamming. How did you respond? You spammed your user page. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 17:30, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
::::It just occurred to me that the category appeared with my copying of the Commandments and Guidelines pages. It was not intentional. According to their content I have the freedom and right to include all decent material I choose to post. Also to remove any unwanted comments. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:34, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::You also have the freedom and right ''to not'' edit war, troll or spam a Sysop. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 17:41, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
::::::The following was posted on my talk page{{quotation|'''Dataclarifier: You have now added an unwarranted Category to your User Talk and User Talk subpages 6 times. You warned not to after the 4th effort. You have earned a 10 minute block for editwarring with a Sysop. The next block will be one hour in length. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 17:16, 7 May 2020 (EDT)<br><br>'''<big>I didn't add the Category tag. I finally found it and removed it. It turned out to be part of what I copied and posted here.</big> --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:51, 7 May 2020 (EDT)}}I have never spammed a sysop. I have not been on your talk page. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:59, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::You're spamming right now. What you posted above is spam. You spammed at least two Sysops, Andy and myself. 



::::Dataclarifier: I'll make a deal; Any time you commit a violation of policy, rules, or guidelines worthy of a block and I have to clean up a mess you made but I overlook the block, I'll make a notation in the editor summary Strike # with cause. Then, when you do get a block and want to come here and dispute it, we can debate it on the merits. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 17:50, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::Every time you blocked me I have been unable to respond because you have blocked all ability to edit. So when I do get a block and want to come here and dispute it you make it impossible. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:01, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
::::::Go to the block tool and scroll down. The first is 10 Minutes. The 2nd 1 hour. The 3rd 2 hours and so on. Lifetime you have received 3 blocks from me, two 10 minute and one 1 hour.  I wiped the slate clean and started over at 10 minutes. The next block will be one hour. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 18:11, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::This controversy bids fair to continue interminably. I wanted to quit it long ago, but you coerced a continuation by threat of block. You've gone through with your threat by actual follow-up action numerous times, and you claimed that you were not threatening to block. It is now abundantly evident that you ''personally'' do not want me on Conservapedia. Andy does. See edits above and also on my Archive 01 page. In a week I will purge my current talk page of all your future comments. I will not get further embroiled in your time-wasting edit warring against me. I will not respond to you, from this moment on. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:16, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Here's the [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1644772 block log.]  I am one of the least likely Admins to issue a block, ask anybody. Any block you ever received was for a violation of site policy, and in every case it was for undoing the actions of Sysop.  In every case you were warned not to. In every case, if you responded, you responded with spam. The combination of spamming and edit warring = trolling. It's a habit you've developed that I'm trying to help you overcome. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 18:27, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Notwithstanding what you have said: Many readers appreciate substantiating evidence or immediately accessible proof backing assertions made in response to challenges put forth to be answered. That is not spamming. They can see then for themselves the facts which provide a basis for intelligent evaluation of any debate from both sides. Would you deny them that opportunity to exercise their own opinion of whether or not the assertions of either side of a debate have merit? I question why anyone would remove such material from the reader's view. No more response. I'll just tend to my talk page and contribute what I can to the content of Conservapedia. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:59, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::In a discussion page regarding mainspace content, your primary responsibility is to address the point under discussion with other participants in that discussion, not playing to an audience of readers. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 23:03, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

===Posting other users signatures===
For months Dataclarifier has cut and pasted other users signatures to pages that other editors have not been involved in. I have respectfully asked him stop spamming and stop forging signatures. He's forged my signature to a User subpage 18 times, and when politely asked to stop, he did it again five more times. I am going to delete the spam page.

Dataclaifier: if you wish to recover the user subpage, you can ask me or another sysop to restore the page. If and when the page is restored, you have a responsibility, in a reasonable amount of time, to remove any other user's electronic signature from the page. You can leave intact a text version of the signature with date and time, but the electronic link must be removed. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 05:30, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

== Joe Biden and Liberal Double Standards  ==

Hello Mr. Schlafly, 

What do you think about creating a page titled "Joe Biden and Liberal Double Standards" to highlight liberal double standards regarding the recent sexual assault claim and other sexual harassment claims made against him? 

Thank you, 
TheNewRight --[[User:TheNewRight|TheNewRight]] ([[User talk:TheNewRight|talk]]) 13:12, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

:Great idea!  Please create the new entry as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:20, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

== Locking my user page ==

This is not something I would usually ask, but I'd like to obtain the ability to lock and unlock my own user page as needed ([https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Northwest&action=history per the vandalism history on my page]).  The reason I'm asking is because I'm getting frustrated with the continued vulgar vandalism of my page by the Juvenile Delinquent (the nickname I use for the young troll who uses sockpuppets with a variety of vulgar and foul variations of other editors' usernames to keep coming back to vandalize the site, so chosen because of his childishness, immaturity, lack of respect for authority and punkish behavior on the site) and I want to be able to lock/unlock my user page when necessary to keep the kid from constantly having his way here with his vandalism sprees.  [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 08:21, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
:That's good request, but I'm not sure the software permits it.  Suggestions are welcome as to how to achieve this with WikiMedia software.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:26, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

:From what I know, locking pages from editing would require either the "protect" or "Administrator" tag. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 12:55, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

::The lesser protection level, "Autoconfirmed" could be used to help reduce this, but as CP is currently configured, it seems that new users are either instantly autoconfirmed, or gain this tag very quickly. In the "local settings.php" file, the following variables can be used to configure this:
::*<nowiki>$wgAutoConfirmAge</nowiki> – Number of seconds an account is required to age before it's given the implicit 'autoconfirmed' group membership. (I suggest setting this to a fairly long time)
::*<nowiki>$wgAutoConfirmCount</nowiki> – Number of edits an account requires before it is autoconfirmed. (perhaps something like 20?)
::Maybe these could be checked and perhaps adjusted, so that users are only autoconfirmed after making some number of edits? This way, we could autoprotect pages which really have no business being edited by  junior editors, without causing problems for everyone else? I know it isn't exactly what is being requested here, but it might help. We could then add autoconfirm protection to Northwest's user page, so he can still edit it, but brand new user accounts cannot. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 13:37, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

:::Going the autoconfirmed route (i.e. only being able to edit selected articles, user pages and user talk pages after a certain amount of time and edits) could do the job if it can be configured, that way it puts an end to that kid's continued nonsense (or at least slows him down enough to discourage him).  [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 02:29, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

::::I'll try putting that protection level on your page with an expiration date, so we can try it. It he wants to troll you though, he will find other ways. Let me know if you want it changed or removed. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 18:18, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

:::Maybe Andy can promote Northwest to "protect", "oversight", and "check user" abilities. That way, Northwest can edit his own user page even if it's protected, identify the IP addresses behind the vandal accounts and block the source, and even hide certain revisions from view if need be. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 20:36, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

::::I just checked my user page and I'm still able to edit there, so that part's not an issue.  As for a promotion to add those abilities, I think that'll be Andy's call to make.  [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 21:58, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

:::::About promotions, hopefully Andy might get to some of them soon. After all, I noticed that you were promoted to "edit" and "block" abilities before having made 1,000 edits, and I currently have over 2,000 edits. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 22:10, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

Liberaltears, I set up your talk page in a way that will prevent vandalism to your talk page and I locked it. 

You can see what I did at: [[User talk:Liberaltears]].

If you didn't like what I did, you can get an admin to revert it.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:33, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

:I'm fine with what you did. Just wondering though, can you also set a protection on my main user page to "autoconfirmed"? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 22:42, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
::I just did your second request. The request about your user page.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:01, 8 May 2020 (EDT)
:::Thank you Conservative! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 21:46, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

== Need help with editing ==

can someone help me find the confirmation number requested when editing? {{unsigned|Fremantle}}
:Are you referring to a [[CAPTCHA]]? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]'''''</sup> 21:57, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

== Improvising a protected template ==

Hi Andy, I request a very specific edit to be made to [[Template:Infobox officeholder/Personal data]], as it's protected and editing is limited to sysops. For the military service section, in the third line between <code><nowiki>{{!}}</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>{{!}} '''Military service'''</nowiki></code>, I request <code><nowiki>colspan="2" {{WPMILHIST Infobox style|header_bar}}</nowiki></code> be replaced with <code><nowiki>!colspan="2" style="background:#E5CDFF"</nowiki></code>. Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]'''''</sup> 23:41, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:I unprotected it for you.  Please edit as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:11, 17 May 2020 (EDT)
::Okay, thank you Andy! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]'''''</sup> 00:12, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

==Piers Morgan vs. Dr. Fauci==

Who's more believable? The Brit who lost a gun-control debate with Ben Shapiro? Or the doctor who runs our infectious disease institute? Piers Morgan cites the FDA as saying the malaria drug will kill you. Fauci's institute has just started a large clinical trial of it.
* Some preliminary reports have suggested that hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with the FDA-approved antibiotic azithromycin, may benefit people with COVID-19. 
* Numerous clinical trials are planned or underway ...
I like journalism and journalists, but the [[fake media]] get get annoying from time to time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:17, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

== Captcha ==
Can you remove the captcha from my account. [[User: Conservative]] requested that I ask you to do so for my account. [[User:Ethan Parmet|Ethan Parmet]] ([[User talk:Ethan Parmet|talk]]) 11:34, 27 May 2020 (EDT)