User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion request

Hello Andy, would you please delete these two redirects: [1][2] They give way too much recognition to a leftist website created to vandalize CP and which slanders CP editors. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2019 (EDT)

Done as requested!--Andy Schlafly (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. --1990'sguy (talk)

I'm OK with it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

MPR suggestion

This struck me as a very Conservapedia type of story: "'In God We Trust' will remain on US currency as Supreme Court declines atheist challenge." 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. --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.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
I take the bait: how can the last be the first in set theory? --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.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

Georg Cantor's great breakthrough ("Cantor diagonalization") was not in showing that the rationals are countable—that is a fairly straightforward construction—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—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—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.

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.--Andy Schlafly (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 1st and 2nd decimal digits, the 3rd and 4th 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. 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? --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 atheist websites.--Andy Schlafly (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. --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.--Andy Schlafly (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. 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.--Andy Schlafly (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): [3] I also sent you an email about this. --1990'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.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
Sorry, I did not see that you had already restored the info. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

Copy&paste of PD or freely usable material

Hi Andy, User:Honeyko 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.
Thanks! --DavidB4 (TALK) 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.--Andy Schlafly (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. 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.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2019 (EDT)

Image question

Hello Andy, is it appropriate (with licensing) to upload this image? [4] 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. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

That's public domain. We can use it. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (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. --1990'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)!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2019 (EDT)
I think both men will be candidates for the upcoming 2019 Conservative of the Year nominations. --1990'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 (see here where a NZ player assists an opposing team who have just lost the match). A true sport of gentleman. 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. JohnSelway (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
I would consider adding shooting sports: [5][6][7] Also, schools in more conservative areas are creating shooting sport teams (and I've heard that they used to be common in public schools): [8][9] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
These are terrific suggestions. Please feel free to add them, or I will. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (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! JohnSelway (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
I figured it out by copy/paste. JohnSelway (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

PD template unlock request

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.
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! --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:24, 11 July 2019 (EDT)

I unlocked it. Please let me know if I need to unlock anything further! Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (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. --DavidB4 (TALK) 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: [10] ). 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 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. 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.--Andy Schlafly (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. Shobson20 (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
It should be OK to post repeated comments to your own talk page.--Andy Schlafly (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 "anklebiters" (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. 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. --DavidB4 (TALK) 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: [11] 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. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2019 (EDT)

That's amazing ... and Breitbart rather than the lamestream media carries the story!--Andy Schlafly (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. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
Perhaps in the quotation section and/or elsewhere in this popular entry: materialism? Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
Done! If there are any other good articles to add it, please let me know. --1990'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 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. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 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.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. --1990'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? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (EDT)

I think you can re-lock it. Thanks! --1990'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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JobsNotMobs (talk)

We already have Left-wing violence in the Trump era, where examples like that are already mentioned. --1990'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. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:16, 5 August 2019 (EDT)


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: [12] This setback for the Left might be a good MPR entry. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2019 (EDT)



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. 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.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
The site is neither. It's a juvenile meme troll factory and barely satirical or parody. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:01, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
Okay. Well, since it's neither, probably better off not creating them. 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? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 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. Progressingamerica (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2019 (EDT)

Image upload request

Hello Andy, would you please upload 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 this and this). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Hoped that worked!--Andy Schlafly (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. --1990'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.--Andy Schlafly (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. --1990'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.--Andy Schlafly (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. --1990'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. --DavidB4 (TALK) 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. --1990'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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChickenHacker (talk)

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! --DavidB4 (TALK) 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? Progressingamerica (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

I think some context can be found here: Talk:Progressivism#Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn --1990'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: [13] Shobson20 (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2019 (EDT)