Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (trim)
(Rudeness: new section)
Line 59: Line 59:
  
 
This is just a follow-up question to the one on evidence against evolution, are you saying that these instincts that these animals have are God given or that science simply has no explanation? [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Evolution&action=historysubmit&diff=925585&oldid=924345 Link to discussion in question] [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 19:39, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
 
This is just a follow-up question to the one on evidence against evolution, are you saying that these instincts that these animals have are God given or that science simply has no explanation? [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Evolution&action=historysubmit&diff=925585&oldid=924345 Link to discussion in question] [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 19:39, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Rudeness ==
 +
 +
In my opinion  ''trimming'' (i.e. deleting) of questions instead of answering them is rude. I don't think that I expect to much when I ask you to answer to the following:
 +
 +
*Will you come up with a meaningful review and comment on my ''extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'' as you announced '''half a year''' ago?
 +
*Do you consider to create a namespace ''CBP'' for the Conservapedia Bible Project?
 +
*What do you hope to achieve by only ''trimming'' all those questions which doesn't please you? Do you want to make the concerned editors silently fade away? Or getting enraged by this treatment and doing something worth a block while losing their temper?
 +
 +
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 07:00, 12 October 2011

Archive Index

Post Comments Here

Edit Policy

To Mr. Schlafly respectfully,

I've made a number of edits I think improved the page on abortion you thought it prudent to revert. Namely;

1. Expanded the discussion of Dr. Lynn Rosenberg's testimony under cross examination - we're both jurists, and we both realize that the attorney was crossing to suggest that abortion can be harmful by contrasting it with a scenario wherein the alternative, pregnancy to term, is beneficial. You and I both know that that only demonstrates the benefits of parity, not the harm of abortion - legally it is not relevant in that it does not tend to prove the point it is material to (that abortion causes cancer). There's no need for this straw man. I Added an explanation of this statement with a cite to a peer reviewed journal discussing the benefits of early parity. I think this accords with the guidelines of reliability (A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated)

2. The sentence "Yet the abortion industry conceals this increased risk, just as the tobacco industry concealed its cancer risk for decades" is supported by this link [[1]] on tobacco rather than abortion. The truth or falsity of the tobacco cover-up is not what makes the truth or falsity of the abortion cover up. In the court room you or I would object; this is not material to the issue, abortion causing breast cancer.

3. Supplemented the one sentence paragraph "Just as organizations denied or failed to disclose the connection between smoking and lung cancer, many organizations aligned with liberal politicians deny the correlation between abortion and breast cancer despite numerous studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating a likely connection." If this claim is too vague to be supported it shouldn't be on a trustworthy encyclopedia. This is a true claim, there are many organizations aligned with liberal politicians who deny this correlation despite articles indicating its existence. I made a list of three specific examples and gave links to their denials, which I thought moved the page into accordance with the style guidelines on attribution and citation.

These all seem to me to be good faith improvements which add verifiable material or remove unverifiable material. I'm legitimately trying to improve this wiki and I think I've complied with its rules and etiquette. It would be very helpful to understand what is wrong with the above edits which seem to accord with both ordinary reason and the rules of Conservapedia. I don't think it steps outside a conservative christian viewpoint to make these corrections since none of them change any content, they rather supplement omissions and remove errors and so they could only be non conservative if the original propositions were non conservative. Since it was you who removed the edits I think you're in the best position to explain where they went astray. btw I did write a similar post on the abortion talk page, but it seems to not have caught anyone's attention. --BillyWest 16:00, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

quote templates

Hi Mr. Schlafly,

I wasn't sure if we had templates for this already, and I couldn't find any specifically for the purpose using the Search feature. With that in mind, I created a generic quote template for use anywhere on the site. If there isn't a need for this, I apologize for the inconvenience. Otherwise, I can copy the code to [[Template::Quote|a more official page]] for site wide use. Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 23:12, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Pages to delete

Hi Mr. Schlafly. I marked several pages for deletion so they could be cleaned up; when you have a moment, could you delete them please? Most are either broken redirects or obsolete talk pages. One is left over from a page merger that I performed a few days ago. Here are the pages:

  1. NOAA
  2. Evolutionary belief shallow and declining
  3. Historians
  4. Early termination of opt-out
  5. Intimate Partner Violence
  6. Talk:Intimate Partner Violence
  7. User talk:Cookanator
  8. Cosmic rays and cloud cover
  9. Talk:Cosmic rays and cloud cover

Could you or another administrator please delete these pages? Thank you very much! Kevin Davis Talk 17:44, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for deleting Early termination of opt-out. If you have a chance, could you or another administrator clean up the rest of the pages? Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 20:05, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

MediaWiki namespace help

Can you please take a look at MediaWiki_talk:Revision-info and MediaWiki_talk:Revision-info-current. Currently, MediaWiki:Revision-info and MediaWiki:Revision-info-current don't render on the top page revisions correctly (here's an example). I've listed the solution to the problem on the talk pages. I have experience with running MediaWiki websites and dealing with problems such as this. --Michaeldsuarez 19:44, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

User:SeanS

User:SeanS unilaterally unblocked several accounts blocked by senior administrators without discussion or consensus, isn't that a good reason to remove his blocking rights? DMorris 14:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Rutgers Law School debate

Hi Andy, I notice you posted a mainpage story about the first amendment debate, I am interested because, as a libertarian (of sorts) and a proponent of free speech, I don't think games should be regulated so am interested in seeing/hearing/reading the debate. Is it available anywhere? Thanks, MaxFletcher 16:53, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

The sponsors plan to post the video. If and when I receive that information, I'll provide a link.--Andy Schlafly 17:53, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

World History Homework

Hello Mr Schlafly, thankyou for grading my papers thus far and for your insightful comments. In relation to your question, yes I am indeed Black British. However, the United Kingdom is perhaps not quite as obscure as you imply. My apologies for missing Homework Three - I'm a semi-professional bodybuilder and while travelling for a contest I was unable to complete that week's assignment. Thankyou for your continuing work, and God Bless! RexBanner 17:18, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Question

This is just a follow-up question to the one on evidence against evolution, are you saying that these instincts that these animals have are God given or that science simply has no explanation? Link to discussion in question GiveMeLiberty 19:39, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Rudeness

In my opinion trimming (i.e. deleting) of questions instead of answering them is rude. I don't think that I expect to much when I ask you to answer to the following:

  • Will you come up with a meaningful review and comment on my extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue as you announced half a year ago?
  • Do you consider to create a namespace CBP for the Conservapedia Bible Project?
  • What do you hope to achieve by only trimming all those questions which doesn't please you? Do you want to make the concerned editors silently fade away? Or getting enraged by this treatment and doing something worth a block while losing their temper?

AugustO 09:00, 12 October 2011 (EDT)