Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(5 Sysops now believe RobS should lose his Sysop rights.)
Line 281: Line 281:
This user has been spamming the main talk with the comments (liberal athiest). His contribs dont look good either. 1 week block would be nice?[[User:Kinetics|Kinetics]] 00:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
This user has been spamming the main talk with the comments (liberal athiest). His contribs dont look good either. 1 week block would be nice?[[User:Kinetics|Kinetics]] 00:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Says an editor who signed up <s>today</s> an hour ago.--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 01:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Says an editor who signed up <s>today</s> an hour ago.--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 01:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
== 5 Sysops now believe RobS should lose his Sysop rights. ==
Another Sysop indicated to me that RobS should lose his Sysop rights. Including myself, 5 Sysops now believe RobS should lose his Sysop rights.
Karajou, TerryH and myself are Sysops who are publicly declaring RobS should lose his Sysop rights. The other 2 Sysops are choosing to remain anonymous.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 13:31, 31 July 2011

Post Comments Here


I just found your site and think it is wonderful. This summer my son wants to take the Micro economics CLEP test. I wanted to find a good study guide that would teach him true ecomomics lessons, rather than liberal economics. Will this prepare him to take and pass the CLEP? Are the answers posted somewhere on you site for your Final exam given. Or is there a way for him to send the exam to you and then you return graded. Is there a cost to this course? Thank you, and have a great summer.

The free courses on Conservapedia are excellent preparation for the corresponding CLEP exams, and many students who have taken these courses (including the Microeconomics one) have then passed the CLEP exam. Correct answers are frequently posted but typically not the correct exam answers; instead, I grade the exam answers that are posted.--Andy Schlafly 11:38, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

New namespace for the CBP

I'd like to share some thoughts on how to present the CBP more effectively on Conservapedia.

1. At the moment, the only way to quote from the CBP is by cut-and-paste: you have to find the verse you are looking for - e.g., John 20:2 - at the appropriate page (John 15-21 (Translated)) and insert it manually in the place: She ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other student, whom Jesus loved, and told them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have laid Him!" If the translation is improved further, each quotation has to be altered manually - if this isn't done, inconsistencies will mount up...

2. It's difficult to search for a specific phrase in the translation: if I look for Jesus and tomb, I get 62 results. There is no possibility to limit the search to the CBP, so most of the results are from other articles. And if John 20:2 is quoted somewhere via cut-and-paste, I get this as a result, too. That is not very satisfying.

To improve the situation, I'd like to have a namespace CBP to be created, where each verse of the Bible gets his own entry. Then the problems mentioned above disappear:

1. {{:CBP:John 20:2}} is an easy way to quote a verse, resulting in: Template:CBP:John 20:2. Any quotation will be updated, when CBP:John 20:2 is altered.

2. The namespace CBP can be searched together with the main namespace - or separately. The results are more meaningful, and instead of a quite imprecise result like John 15-21 (translated), you get the exact verses where the phrases occur, like CBP:John 20:2.

This concept leaves room for more improvements, some of which I tried to implement for John 20:2:

1. As said above, when typing

{{:CBP:John 20:2}}

you get the verse as a result - with a link to its page:

CBP:John 20:2

2. When you visit the verse's page, you get more information:

CBP:John 20:2

leads to

<< 2She ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other student, whom Jesus loved, and told them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have laid Him!" >>

Other Translations

KJV: Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.


Context: John 20

CBP:John 20:1 CBP:John 20:2 CBP:John 20:3 CBP:John 20:4 CBP:John 20:5 CBP:John 20:6 CBP:John 20:7 CBP:John 20:8 CBP:John 20:9 CBP:John 20:10 CBP:John 20:11 CBP:John 20:12 CBP:John 20:13 CBP:John 20:14 CBP:John 20:15 CBP:John 20:16 CBP:John 20:17 CBP:John 20:18 CBP:John 20:19 CBP:John 20:20 CBP:John 20:21 CBP:John 20:22 CBP:John 20:23CBP:John 20:24 CBP:John 20:25 CBP:John 20:26 CBP:John 20:27 CBP:John 20:28 CBP:John 20:29 CBP:John 20:30 CBP:John 20:31

This is done via the <noinclude> tag, which transcludes only the actual translated verse. In this way many other features can be added without tempering with quotations. The links on the pages allow for navigating through the project, the context section is an invitation to read further on - John 20:10-31 is missing at the moment...

At the moment, the only disadvantage of the representation is that it takes a lot of work to implement the CBP this way. And I'm afraid that User:Edbot won't be much of a help...

As the New Testaments incorporates ca. 8000 verses, at least for the Gospels such a task could be done manually.

AugustO 09:38, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

BTW: tempus fugit a quarter of a year ago I made some comments on the translation of ἰδοὺ. Two months ago, you announced that you were preparing an answer to these. Any progress? AugustO

I did eventually respond somewhere, by noting that ἰδοὺ has long been translated as "when", which is archaic for "at that moment."
Your namespace suggestion is fascinating, and I wonder if both approaches could be used: continue with CBP where it is, but create a new namespace (perhaps with links and templates) that provide the additional functionality you suggest.--Andy Schlafly 11:29, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
Your namespace suggestion is fascinating, and I wonder if both approaches could be used: continue with CBP where it is, but create a new namespace (perhaps with links and templates) that provide the additional functionality you suggest This is indeed possible - and should be the way to go: the new namespace would include only the verses, nothing else is changed for the CBP: no pages are moved, only new pages are created.
I did eventually respond somewhere, by noting that ἰδοὺ has long been translated as "when", which is archaic for "at that moment." You seem to refer to this entry from July 10, 2011:
August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [1], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--Andy Schlafly 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
Surely this isn't the review and comment which you were planning for two months?
I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --Andy Schlafly 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed here, I will take a closer look at your statement:
August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for any reference, but for a meaningful reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your google count of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on April 18, 2011:
Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious (here is bad enough. Getting me to make it blatantly obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about participation, but about contribution! --AugustO 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
Frankly, I expected your comment and review to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.
Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a meaningful reference, neither.
With one simple search... this should have been a warning: you have tried simple searches before, and you failed.
...I found that it is translated as "when"... Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as when by the NAS, the New American Standard Bible. Conservapedia states
The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.
It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.
...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular. Yep, when can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"
Summary: On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment". Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.
Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.
AugustO 09:05, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

New mystery

Mystery: Which country will make a greater move towards strong conservatism in the coming 10 years: England or the United States? Conservative

Wouldn't that question be more suited to a debate? After all, what is so mysterious about it, the way you've phrased it? Can things that have yet happen even be mysterious? TracyS 09:33, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
Deleted it. Conservative 15:25, 20 July 2011 (EDT)


A spambot that needs to be blocked and pages deleted.--JamesWilson 14:14, 20 July 2011 (EDT)


I found your site over a year ago, but I just made an account. I saw that you are teaching a World History course this fall. How and where could I sign up for this class? I'd love to take it!

Darius Bieber
July 20th, 2011

Andromeda galaxy

I know this has been contentious issue, and I've studied most of the background discussions on the talk page there. I believe I understand the point you made, It's absurd even to contemplate whether the universe would exist so far into the future, and I fully agree it is junk science designed to serve a socio-political cause. The editor, User:BMcP remains in good standing (as best I can determine), and has asked to restore some of his efforts on tthe page. I was thinking of possibly this version. I have not fully reviewed the article, and don't feel competent to judge competing claims on technical data (if competing claims on technical data do indeed exist on that page).

The origninal editor may wish to return to CP. I understand fully, and could not agree more, constant repetition of claims, such as "millions and billions of years", may be considered more as a form of indoctrination masquarading as science, as it is both factually unverified, and unveriable. Do you have any objections to the reversion or the editors return? Rob Smith 23:36, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

Just as an aside, I reverted the edits by FergusE (whom I suspect to be a parodist) because he removed the distances section. Even creationists agree on how far away things are. hence needing to find a solution for the starlight problem. Whether or not there are billions of years in our future is a different argument altogether. MaxFletcher 23:40, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
Billions of solar years, I presume you refer to. Rob Smith 23:49, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
What I mean is that Andromeda is billions of miles away however creationists (of which I am not sure if I am one or not) don't agree that means that the universe is billions of years old. Do you know what i mean? MaxFletcher 23:52, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
Not really. I gueessing the universe is probably older than the earth, it's only logical. But I (and that would include Einstein, Hawking, and Sagan) would have no way of telling, other than guess work. Rob Smith 23:57, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
I don't much time thinking about such things anyway, way over my head! MaxFletcher 23:59, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
MaxFletcher, first I don't appreciate you accusing me of being a parodist. If you have a problem with me, we can deal with it on my talk page. As for the Andromeda galaxy, there is no convincing evidence that it is millions of light years away. Furthermore, the evidence that astronomers use are based on assumptions about the age of the Earth and on relativistic effects, both of which are very convincingly debunked here. Leaving the mainstream distance to Andromeda on Conservapedia is inconsistent both with observed reality and with other scientific articles on Conservapedia. --FergusE 01:05, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
The distance of the galaxies isn't disputed by anyone, not even creationists. MaxFletcher 01:13, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
According to one of the leading creationist website there are over 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. You tell me how big you think the universe is and then explain how so many galaxies could exist within such a space without the gravitational pull tearing them, and us, apart. MaxFletcher 01:19, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
I suspect there are far more than 100 billion galaxies in the Universe. God's creation is truly infinite and breathtaking. As for the visible universe, it's about 12,000 light years in diameter. To answer your question about galaxies and gravity, I can think of a few possibilities: Perhaps there aren't as many galaxies and stars as mainstream science would have you believe, or perhaps gravity doesn't work exactly as mainstream science says it does, or perhaps God is preventing that happening to us somehow. --FergusE 01:42, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

In response to Rob's question that started this thread, I'm fine with restoring the version that he cites.

In response to the other comments above, there are flaws of logic and verifiability associated with claims of time and distance for galaxies in the universe. Assertions of time are based on untestable assumptions and should be avoided in a credible encyclopedic resource like this one. Assertion of distance are less problematic but still have weaknesses in logical rigor.--Andy Schlafly 09:13, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Discussion moved to Talk:Starlight problem

How about this heatwave?

How are you beating the heat? TerryB 17:29, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

It's summer. What took the heat so long to arrive, and why will it be leaving so soon?--Andy Schlafly 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Amen, Andy! After the wretchedly cold and wet spring we had, I'm going to enjoy the heat while it's here. I'll be shoveling snow soon enough! --Benp 19:08, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
I personally don't deal well with hot temperatures and high humidity. Especially because I melt metal for a living. I'll take spring/fall over this any day. WesleySHello! 19:25, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

... or maybe I was just wondering how you're beating the heat? But nevermind. TerryB 19:26, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

The heat isn't really going anywhere. Right now the forecast is 3 or 4 days of relief, sort of, then back in the 90s. I wasn't trying to be political. TerryB 07:13, 22 July 2011 (EDT)


Please could you unprotect the Scotland page. Some of the information is out of date (e.g. the government) and I would like to update it. Thanks. HollyS 17:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Doing it now. Conservative 19:29, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
It isn't protected. I didn't have to unprotect it. Conservative 19:30, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

User: RobS

Discussion moved to Conservapedia:Community Portal

Please delete

Please delete the page I have pointed out on recent changes!!! I have blocked the user that created it. MaxFletcher 20:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I do not condone that user's behaviour for a second but it is perfectly predictable. It is exactly what one would expect as a reaction to Conservative's trolling "essays". --PierreS 20:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I don't remember if it is standard practice or not, but you may want to delete the corresponding talk page as well, so it isn't hanging in the ether. WesleySHello! 20:35, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
It would help if someone provided a link. Rob Smith 21:18, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
It has been deleted. And the link would likely never have made it through the filters from the likes of me. WesleySHello! 21:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Pierre, I am sorry you feel that many atheists/evolutionists have thin skins and lack self-restraint when they read comedy/satires of atheism and evolution. Do you agree with Wired magazine's observation that atheists tend to be aggressive, socially challenged males?[2] Conservative 21:47, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Um, I believe the user has been blocked. And, just for the record, most of the atheists I have met (there are a lot in my part of the world) tend to be just as kind and socially adept as anyone else. But I wouldn't know about atheists the US. MaxFletcher 21:49, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, are you in the UK? Have you met Richard Dawkins? Conservative 00:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
No, I am not in the UK and no I haven't meet Richard Dawkins but I have read two of his books. Nonetheless most of the atheists I have met (there are a lot in my part of the world) tend to be just as kind and socially adept as anyone else including members of my family, colleagues and close friends. Most people in my part of the world are rather personal about their faith (or lack thereof) and don't feel the need to politicize nor pour scorn on the beliefs of others. MaxFletcher 00:47, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I see you live in NZ now. Please see if you can find some statistics on NZ Christian charitable giving versus NZ atheists charitable giving. In the USA, even if church giving isn't counted, Christians give more per capita according to some data that I am acquainted with. See: Atheism and uncharitableness I do think that charitable giving is an important form of kindness and also it can a good aggregate indicator as well in terms of a population's kindness - especially in the developed world. Conservative
Interestingly, there was an international survey on this recently. NZ has about 1/3 of the population marking "No religion" on the most recent survey and New Zealand came out as the most charitable country in the world next to Australia.. But again, most of the atheists I have met (there are a lot in my part of the world) tend to be just as kind and socially adept as anyone else including members of my family, colleagues and close friends. MaxFletcher 00:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, comparing apples to apples is far more meaningful and significant. Namely, you have to compare NZ Christians vs. NZ atheists. Conservative 01:24, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I can think of no such study I'm afraid nor does it have any bearing on my comment. I am in fact one of the only Christians in my group of friends (outside of church) and everyone treats me, and each other, with kindness and respect. MaxFletcher 01:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Elvis images

My requests somehow got stuck in an archive.--JamesWilson 00:21, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Here are some links to photos that might be usable in the article. One should be fair use, the other should be usable considering the rationale given.
Elvis 1954 promo
Elvis in Aloha from Hawaii
Cheers, --SharonW 10:00, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Since the original requests are archived somewhere, here is also one of him in the Army.
Elvis in the Army Thanks!--JamesWilson 11:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I dug up the original requests and put them at Conservapedia:Image upload requests--JamesWilson 21:14, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

I put additional requests for the Bob Seger article, which I just started working on last night, as well. Thanks!--JamesWilson 23:28, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Hello Conservapedia!

Hi Mr. Schlafly. I'm a new user here, and I just wanted to thank you for making this resource. I look forward to continuing to contribute, and I hope my recent edits have improved the encyclopedia. Thanks! User:MorrisF

Ditto. This is a very good resource for students. I shudder to think what would happen if Wikipedia was the only reliable resources for my children. NickP 01:11, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Android App

Please give me your opinion on the CP mobile app. I feel it could be very useful for your homeschoolers and for general promotion of the site. May God Bless you.--FergusE 22:22, 28 July 2011 (EDT)


I was attempting to fix some pages with 'cite errors' (no references section) but they already had external links and when I attempted to save them it brings up that annoying Captcha thing. Is there any way that this can be applied only to new links? CAHERINE 03:16, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't think there is a way to do that since the CAPTCHA is triggered the moment links actually appear in an article that had not been there before. In this case, the "Cite Error" prevented the link from appearing in the article, so by the CAPTCHA's logic, you added them.
However, I suggested amending the CAPTCHA's Whitelist on the Community Portal, which would allow users to add links to trusted sites without going through the CAPTCHA. --Sid 3050 12:58, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Pardon me for being so dumb, but I've been meaning to ask you to explain this in more detail. I'm really a dimwit on this. Rob Smith 23:23, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

"Wanted pages" appears broken

Sorry, I wasn't sure where to raise this, but I was trying to load Special:WantedPages as it's always a good source for new articles, but it keeps coming up with a blank page, or it times out. Thought I would mention it, just in case there is a problem and it's not just my PC. Thanks! TracyS 11:29, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

I can't get it either, so it's not just you.--JamesWilson 11:51, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Atheist hospitals

Hello, Mr. Schlafly

I listened to your debate concerning the use of a cross in the 9/11 memorial. While I generally agree with you in this case (I am an atheist, and I don't care one way or another if there's a cross, and if it was indeed salvaged from the ruins then by all means include it), I have to take issue with your assertion concerning "atheist hospitals." I often hear people say similar things such as "there are no atheist charities" and I must say that that doesn't really apply. Atheism, in its rawest definition, means the lack of religion. It is not a religion, though there are organizations of atheists such as the one led by the man you debated with (personally, I find the idea of "organized atheism" to be silly). Anyways, there are atheist hospitals and charities: by default, any charity that does not take a religious stance or objective would be "atheistic." The Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, and Amnesty International would be good examples of charitable organizations that are not concerned with religion.

As an example, I, an atheist, am not defined by religion. I simply see no reason to believe in any supernatural or divine actors. Thus I do not do things in the name of what I don't believe. I still assist those in need, I still care about others, and if I were to build a hospital I would not call it an "atheist hospital." It would simply be a hospital, as there are many others out there.--CamilleT 22:45, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Per capita atheists and agnostics in America give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists. For more information please see: Atheism and uncharitableness
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conservative (talk)
Don't lump me in with your statistics. You don't know me. You know nearly nothing about me.--CamilleT 23:43, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

4 Sysops believe that RobS should lose his Admin rights - Another Sysop emailed me

I unexpectedly had another Sysop email me. Including myself, 4 Sysops now believe RobS should lose his Sysop rights. I will qualify my position that RobS should lose his Sysop rights by indicating that I believe he should be able to earn them back. I also believe he should apologize for his recent poor behavior and alter his behavior. Conservative 20:40, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Have they asked that their identities and reasoning remain a secret? --JarradD 20:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
TerryH and I have gone on record. If you want further elaboration from Sysop TerryH, I suggest contacting him via his talk page. If the 2 other Sysops want to elaborate they can certainly do so. I hadn't planned on commenting on this matter further, but I did receive an unexpected email from another Sysop. I thought the most expeditious way to handle the matter would be relay the information to Mr. Schlafly and let others know about it as well. Conservative 21:02, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
Make your case here of site policy violations Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation or cease trolling this talk page. Rob Smith 23:03, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, even if Rob gets demoted, infinitely blocked, and unperson'd, do you really think it's going to stop? You're the one being unprofessional, look at your response to AugustO [[3]]. Maybe the other four sysops should lose their privileges along with you. TerryB 23:45, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
I have to agree, Terry. It doesn't really matter what happens to RobS (not that his actions warrant any demotion anyway). So long as Conservapedia allows editors to speak their minds without fear of censorship or reprisal, Conservative will be at risk of demotion because his behaviour has been, and continues to be, so abysmal. His constant deletions and oversighting, his rudeness to editors and his refusal to address issues raised with him are legendary. In addition, his raft of locked pages bring the site into disrepute as a result of their generally low quality, their trolling nature and their propagandistic content. Anyone supporting Conservative in these matters should also lose their privileges. --JarradD 00:16, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
We're just seeing resistance to reform. Cowards, and petty dictators who feel threatened. None of them are qualified to be Wikipedia editors, let alone Conservapedia sysops. Rob Smith 00:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
RobS, before making another run at building a community, perhaps you should consider taking a Dale Carnegie course and read some of his books. Judging from some of your recent posts, particularly this latest one, I don't think your current methods are working too well. But I could be wrong, maybe your winning friends and influencing people and I just don't realize it. Conservative 00:57, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
I've done that, my friend, and trained more people in sales (i.e., taught them to feed themselves) than you've arbitrarily blocked, which says a lot. The difference between RW & CP is, RW has a community, and CP sysops are hell bent on destroying any sort of collaborative cooperation. RW started from nothing but foul-mouthed trolls to an open, thriving, talented and successful wiki project, while while Personal remark removed elements such as yourself have recklessly abused willing volunteers who wanted to help. You've destroyed your own reputation, and the reputation of the Conservapedia project along with it. RW is a community, despite nasty differences between users, they can function. As long as Personal remark removed [people] such as yourself continue to wield sysop & oversight tools on this site, I pity any poor fool who comes across it and tries to get involved. They'd have a better chance -- with no talent -- surviving at Wikipedia. Rob Smith 01:21, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
Whilst, as a new user, I do hesitate to weigh in User:RobS has a very valid point. Community, I believe, is what is required to expand what has already been achieved here. --Aortuso 02:32, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
It is just common sense that people working together will achieve more as team than single editors monopolising parts of the wiki, surely it is also more American - 'E pluribus unum'! KarenWu 03:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

"Willing volunteers" wanting to work here? Is that what you say about RW, RobS? A "functioning community"? I looked on your user page in that freak show that is RW, and my question to you must be said in front of all of these witnesses: who authorized you to take private email accounts from private Google groups that we were all a part of and post them to Conservaleaks? You claim we're the problem? You're part of their little trolling world, you're part of the problem, and you're the cause of a huge amount of damage to this site and the raising of hate and discontent among us, and all because you decided on your own to abandon reason for madness. You're done here, RobS. Karajou 06:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

  • Q.who authorized you to take private email accounts from private Google groups that we were all a part of and post them to Conservaleaks?

A. (1) Those are private communications between me and a deceased person. I am free to disclose my own private correspondance, whilst presumably the estate of an anonymous username, which the anonymous user always denied matched his real life identity, may possibly have some claim of breach of privacy, but I doubt it; (2) you Karajou, need some understanding of facts before you perform an action such as the above post. You seem to have a habit of jumping to conclusions without any facts or evidence. Rob Smith 09:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
RobS, touting your supposed accomplishments while bashing other Sysops and perhaps others with various allegations is not proving to be a successful strategy. If you are an accomplished salesman, I would suggest using your interpersonal skills at this wiki with your fellow Sysops and others. Third, you haven't sold me on your claims about another wiki and I remain skeptical. For example, I have a hard time believing that a website of former foul mouthed trolls with current nasty differences between users is still not a foul mouthed place. It is largely an atheist wiki and the Barna Group found among other things that atheists and agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America to use obscene language.[4] As long as you continue down this same path while blaming others for your failure due to your ego, I don't see things changing as far as your ineffectiveness at gaining the cooperation of others. Conservative 07:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
I have contacted the FBI and Rob will be taken away within the hour. As we all know collaborating with liberal vandals in punishable by death and I for one look forward to seeing the look on his face in court when he is condemned. PatK 07:05, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

User:Conservative asks ASchlafly to invoke mob rule

RobS, as it stands, I think it would take a considerable amount of work to repair your relationships with various individuals at this wiki and I don't see you being willing to do that work due to your excessive ego. In addition, due to some of your recent activity, there is now a feeling that you can't be trusted which further compounds matters. I haven't asked a particular Sysop if your Sysop rights should be removed. I believe if I did ask this person, the tally of Sysops who think you should lose your Sysop rights would be 5. Do you really want to continue down your current counterproductive path? If you continue to shoot yourself in the foot, you will eventually cause your own demise at this wiki. Conservative 07:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
  • Folks, true Wiki's have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy. ...Aschlafly 12:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • A wiki need not be a direct democracy, just as most countries are not. It is essential to avoid mob rule. Wikipedia fails in this essential regard. Consevapedia, in contrast, is based on rules [Ibid]... Aschlafly 11:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • There is a difference between intellectual discourse, and attacking someone for what they believe. Wikipedia condones bullying and mob rule, we don’t. Violators of the CP Guidelines will be blocked. Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility Rob Smith 14:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

I'm actually amazed that a simple request from a sysop for user:Conservative to be a bit more accommodating in the spirit of a wiki, has degenerated to the point where the latter, rather than amend his ways, openly rallies the mob to have the first sysop hanged, drawn and quartered in public. Is keeping your talk pages locked that important to you? Are you that afraid of responding to criticism and questions. Those that you might have a few precious seconds of your valuable time to respond to, of course.
Just in case user:Conservative is unaware, this is the definition of a wiki: A Web site developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content. From your actions, it would appear as if you would be happier at WordPress or Blogger. You certainly are not interested in collaboration.
User:Conservative has brought Conservapedia into disrepute through his actions, including dragging the sysops into it - this reference to vague sysops supporting you smacks of deceit. If they do, it should be up to them to admit it, as Karajou has done, not for you to be whispering in Mr. Schalfly's ear like some Tolkein-esque Wormtongue.
In addition, Karajou appears to have missed the point. He seems to be dismissing RobS's complaint because of something totally unrelated to user:Conservative's actions. This is sad, as it would appear as if the whole mess has boiled over into petty rivalries and the participants can no longer see the woods for the trees. TracyS 07:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
You ask excellent questions, Tracy, but you're missing an important one: Assuming that those anonymous sysops exist, why are they supporting Conservative and not Rob? I think that fact alone speaks volumes. --Sid 3050 07:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm guessing it's more important for them to have abysmally written articles about flying kitties and Indian Christian dancing girls (even if the accompanying picture is of a Hindu!) on their main page, than to have accountability. There can be no other explanation. TracyS 08:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
Something just hit me: "Big Government refers to a government that is very influential in the everyday lives of citizens, often due to its far-reaching agencies." So it shouldn't be so surprising to see a conservative fighting to reduce the reach and power of the local ruling class (whose power currently reaches as far as making them right by default in content editing), should it? --Sid 3050 07:50, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
I registered on the 1st of January 2011 but for some reason editing seems to be almost permanently blocked for someone in the UK as I am, hence I have made no real contribution - along with my earlier comments about user:conservative childish articles putting me off. Truth is (and I KNOW I will be blocked for this and this edit reverted but_ I get the impression that some sysops and admins here have very little power elsewhere in their lives so instead of addressing the evident shortcomings in the input and hehaviour of user:conservative to the wiki, they prefer to hold on to what little power they have as it justifies them. I watched and witnessed TK slowly destroying this site from within, user:conservative and user:karajou are completing the late TK's work. Now feel free, go ahead and prove me right by blocking me and reverting this edit. Davidspencer 08:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT) I put it there for a reason obvious troll PatK. You are the kind of idiot that is slowly destorying this wiki, along with Conservative.

For your treasonous actions and treacherous words, I have also reported you to the FBI. We shall string you up alongside Rob. PatK 08:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
The proposals of Sid and David sound suspiciously like communism. PatK 08:21, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
I have no shortage of things to do and there are a lot more enjoyable things I could be pursuing. RobS and his sidekick Sid 3050 can rant and rave, but I will not be paying attention to these clowns. I shouldn't have allowed RobS to distract me from pursuing more important matters. I am sure Andy would have put an end to RobS's pestering if I had asked him to do so. Conservative 09:33, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
Regardless of what Rob did on RW, I agree that RW has a thriving community and articles that are well written and informative. Here we have Conservative's "articles", and no quality control. Like I said, it's not going to stop with Rob gone. As long as sysops like Karajou and Conservative continue doing what they're doing, Conservapedia will be nothing more than a third rate wiki. ...and Conservative, how many times have you said that? TerryB 09:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

"I am sure Andy would have put an end to RobS's pestering if I had asked him to do so." Um, excuse me - if you never asked Mr Schlafly to intervene, then just why exactly is this discussion taking place on his talk page? Just looking for attention? You really should try and keep your story straight if you're going to make things up. TracyS 09:52, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Also, just this Friday, you said "As far as the RobS matter, from what I have been told Aschalfly is going to review matters in the very near future and decide what to do. I have said my piece on the matter and have decided to move on." Interesting how "moving on" now means returning here yet again to proclaim that Rob should lose sysop rights and that another anonymous sysop (who may or may not exist) agrees with you. (Oh, and I'm still not an atheist. But I guess you will ignore this fact yet again the moment you need to vilify those who dare to criticize you.) --Sid 3050 10:07, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Just a general comment for Andy from a new editor. I don't think it's relevant at all what other wiki projects are doing be it Wikipedia or wikis dedicated to criticizing Conservapedia. Of course, we should be sympathetic to a conservative POV. (Why call this Conservapedia then if we were not?). As a general point which I think applies here, I am getting tired of conservatives having to act apologetic towards underachieving liberals who dedicate their whole lives to personally maligning conservatives with providing any ideas of substance. HP 10:48, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

I think an end needs to be put to this bickering caused by the misguided attempts of User:RobSmith to drive this website in a more atheistic and liberal direction. As an outsider (avid reader but non-contributor) I see that User:Conservative has created (and continues to create, unless bogged down in timewasting arguments initiated by User:RobSmith as he attempts to undermine the core conservative Christian values of the site) huge amounts of high quality material on subjects that really matter, where as User:RobSmith seems content to merely defend liberal trolls and actively prevent the site from dealing with atheists and others who hate all we stand for. Bclough 11:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
You should go back to coaching Nottingham Forest, Mr Clough. or may I call you Brian? TracyS 11:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
You are so transparent it's pathetic. Conservative's material is extremely low quality and a lot of it is just copy and paste jobs from other articles. He knows this, so he reverts, burns, locks talk pages, and bans users. Rob is trying to put an end to these community strangling practices by holding sysops accountable. Is that such a bad thing except to those in power? As far as other wiki's go, there is a reason why RW is successful and CP isn't. Think about it. TerryB 11:38, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
BClough, it's not unlikely you are a sock of another sysop. I know I'm a first time contributor (although I am a long-time reader), but your use of certain key phrases like "liberal troll" gives you away. If this is true, that sysop would be in violation of the site's policies that prohibit multiple accounts per person. Can someone run check user on BClough and other sysops just to make sure? You seem to run check user on everyone. —KBarnett 11:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
Given that Mr Schlafly recently removed RobS's checkuser rights, there might be some merit in the question. After all, if Mr Schlafly was going to punish RobS, it seems a strange right to remove. Is there a cover-up going on? TracyS 11:52, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
I wouldn't be surprised. —KBarnett 11:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that User:FergusE is a sock of a sysop...can check user be run on him also? —KBarnett 13:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
Conservative has been suspected of creating socks. His writing style is extremely unique. TerryB 13:38, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

I'm not much involved in this wiki politicking, but it seems utterly extraordinary to me that one of the few very senior administrators of this website, who seems intelligent and fair, and who wanst to establish fair rules and systematic policies across the website, is being disciplined while another incredibly childish and noisy sysop who seems to fill up 75% of Recent Changes posting ludicrous articles on the main page about "walrus slides" is being supported. While I like this website and the article content quite a bit, I've found that it's almost impossible to get any of my like-minded friends to take it seriously, as any time I've ever forward a link to here, the response is usually "Why are there all those ridiculous articles there? - that place looks like my child's bedroom after a birthday party" (an actual response from a friend of mine). I would like to publicly support RobS and if I had any power would like to give "Conservative" a good talking to. JanW 13:52, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Once again, Mr. Schlafly's talk page has been turned into a general opinion form--much of it from "new contributors" who seem remarkably conversant with Conservapedia nonetheless and who are not directly involved in this matter.
I am going to ask politely: please stop. It's rude, and it's not what a user's talk page is for. Mr. Schlafly knows the facts, and he is, I'm sure, quite capable of reaching his decision without endless debate by those of us who aren't directly involved.
In particular, accusations of "conspiracy" and deception directed towards sysops are an extremely serious matter. Unless you have some substantial evidence to show, I strongly suggest refraining from such accusations. Thus far, they've been remarkably tolerant and patient with respect to such accusations and personal attacks, but that doesn't mean they're justified or appropriate.
If you have a question or a direct message for Mr. Schlafly, please feel free to ask. Otherwise, please show some respect and take the discussion to another venue.
Thank you. --Benp 13:58, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
But Mr. Schlafly isn't responding and as the site owner and ultimate authority on issues like these the community feels that he should be made aware of it. He hasn't provided a response yet. Also, with Conservapedia's self-proclaimed record breaking monthly viewership, why are you surprised at all the new members? —KBarnett 14:07, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
It's less that we have a lot of new people... its the fact we have a lot of new editors who seem to show up with the "Long time listener, first time caller" statement, who then get involved almost immediately in a dispute between Synops and have more knowledge of the way the site works and the various Personalities that populate the site that is the problem.--SeanS 14:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
You don't think three days of incessant spam on his webpage has "made him aware?" He knows what's going on. And I'm not surprised at the new members--or the way they're swarming to this particular issue--in the slightest. As SeanS has pointed out, sudden influxes of "new editors" with remarkable knowledge of the doings here are not a new phenomenon.
I asked nicely. I will repeat myself: please take it elsewhere. Those who are directly involved are more than capable of resolving this for themselves. Again, thank you. --Benp 14:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

user:Jab512 parodist?

This user has been spamming the main talk with the comments (liberal athiest). His contribs dont look good either. 1 week block would be nice?Kinetics 00:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Says an editor who signed up today an hour ago.--SharonW 01:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

5 Sysops now believe RobS should lose his Sysop rights.

Another Sysop indicated to me that RobS should lose his Sysop rights. Including myself, 5 Sysops now believe RobS should lose his Sysop rights.

Karajou, TerryH and myself are Sysops who are publicly declaring RobS should lose his Sysop rights. The other 2 Sysops are choosing to remain anonymous. Conservative 14:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)