Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(More final thoughts on TAR -- just revoke his block rights)
(Scribes (Bible): Looks even better now. I did a minor punctuation improvement. Terrific work.)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Comment here'''
+
== Deletion request ==
  
[[User talk:Aschlafly/Archives|Archive Index]]
+
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'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:29, 16 April 2019 (EDT)
__TOC__
+
  
== Printed Version of Conservative Bible. Name of Conservative Bible ==
+
:Done as requested!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 09:15, 16 April 2019 (EDT)
  
• I'd like to print a copy of the NT draft. The copy I'm planning to print is publishable (I typeset, this is practice/research.) I'd like to push it into a software program.  I'd like to do this with permission. Who do I need to contact/how?
+
== Miley Cyrus photo ==
  
• The Title of the Bible version has been used before. This causes issues with recognition, and the word conservative in biblical circles means very very literal translation, which this version is not. Can I suggest titling this version "Holy Bible: A Trustworthy Version" or "Conservapedia's Trustworthy Version of the Bible"? [[User:Cmahte|Cmahte]] ([[User talk:Cmahte|talk]]) 10:24, 6 October 2015 (EDT)
+
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'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]])
 +
:I'm OK with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:23, 19 April 2019 (EDT)
  
:I don't claim that the "[[Conservative Bible Project]]" is the only "Trustworthy Version," so I oppose those titles.  Who used the title "Conservative Bible" before?  I doubt anyone has used "Conservative Bible Project" before.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:50, 6 October 2015 (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)
::re: [[Conservative Bible Project]] : I'm not referring to the name of the project to produce the work but the words that would appear on the front cover. It will be confusing to have the Conservative Version of the Bible(completed 2008, printed 2012) and Conservative Bible (which is actually only a NT at this stage).  My suggestions are just that, suggestions. However, if you could find a way to separate them a bit...
+
  
::re: Another work with the same name:  (My wikityping is out of date, feel free to update this external link. http://e-sword-users.org/users/node/3073 ). The Conservative Version of the Bible was completed in a proof version on or before 2008. That's about when I became aware of it. The latest update of bug-fixes for the software modules are from circa 2009.  They published the entire Bible to print in 2012.
+
== So the last will be first, and the first last ==
  
::re: Proceed to create Print and Software materials: Can I proceed with permission or at least acknowledgement that this wouldn't be a 'rare exception' mentioned on the copyright pageWho should I contact about permission/licensing/proofing prior to releasing?[[User:Cmahte|Cmahte]] ([[User talk:Cmahte|talk]]) 18:27, 6 October 2015 (EDT)
+
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—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.
  
:::You're talking to the right person about permission, and it's fine to reprint the translation here, without any license fee, as the "Conservative Bible Project" (its true title) or something similar, such as the "Conservapedia Bible."  Honestly, I don't like calling it a "Trustworthy" Bible because there are other translations that are worthwhile in their own ways, as reflected by praise and use of excerpts from them on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:34, 6 October 2015 (EDT)
+
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.
  
:: Thank you for your permission. I only chose "trustworthy" because its there on the pageI've started processing the text and already have some things I can deal with, but to best represent the project, I'd like to know what the intent was/is:
+
Does the well-ordering theorem constitute intelligent design?  That's not for me to say. Does it disprove the Cantor diagonalization theorem?  NoThe well-order on the reals necessarily uses the Axiom of Choice, and cannot be constructed.  Cantor diagonalization ''can'' be constructed.
  
::: In the first few chapters of Matthew, there are 26 verses which appear 2 times. (Matt 4:1-11, Matt 5: 1-9, Matt 16:18)  All of these appear to be alternatives, and none of them should appear as a verse repeated.. but is it better to remove the alternate or push it into the commentary? If you look through these, some of these alternates are so close, and they are grouped up so much at the front of Matthew.. is it possible to pick one or the other of some of these, and only list the verses with more variation as alternates? [[User:Cmahte|Cmahte]] ([[User talk:Cmahte|talk]]) 21:55, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
+
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.
  
::: I haven't made it to checking yet, but I've already spotted obvious spelling errors (Matt 5:39 should contain resist, not resit). The program I'm going to be checking in isn't exactly friendly with wikis... it's got its own storage format. 
+
:But I'm in good company if I resist your way of looking at things in this manner. I'm sure AugustO is also.
  
::: Deaf Missions lists verses of the NRSV, but you parallel KJV (for the NT I think this only varies in 2 John and Rev 12.) I know the 26 verses above are additional and John 7:53 - 8:11 are intentionally missing. Is there anything else that will vary from KJV verses that is intentional? My mental math is coming up short about 10 verses that the sums are different. Again, I haven't started checking.
+
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:39, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
 +
::"sets can have different orders" - preciselyBut 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)
  
::::These are excellent pointsI will review and respond today to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:21, 8 October 2015 (EDT)
+
:::The real line, like all sets of more than one element, most definitely ''can'' have multiple different orderingsHere'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.
  
Cmahte, is wasting your time and he is not serious about this matter. He is a new editor that has edited from different IP addresses from locations very distant from each other. He has also posted his message at the top of your user page instead of the customary bottom of your user page because he wants as much attention as possible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:50, 8 October 2015 (EDT)
+
:::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)
  
: ''not serious'' - Were the entire Conservative Bible completed, It would be difficult to make it to print. Printing an entire Bible is a specialized event that only makes sense in large quantities. Printing a New Testament is certainly feasible, and is appropriate, and can be done POD at reasonable rates.
+
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)
  
: ''new editor'' - I'm not an editor, I'm a typesetter/programmer.
+
: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)
  
: ''from different IP addresses'' - I have checked Conservapedia from both my office at work and at homeThey are located about 10 miles apart, but the work office routes traffic through home office, in another state. I'm Texan but my business card says Chicago.  
+
::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-evidentWhen 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)
  
:::::Some of the minor mistakes are being corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:59, 8 October 2015 (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.
  
:: I've been busy in the last week, but I have noted changes were/are ongoingThe process I use Involves stripping the HTML and encoding the text into a biblical editing tagging (USFM) which is then transformed into other encodings (epub, Adobe PDF for print, software modules.) The first step is manual and took me 2 hours to get from your page to an 80% complete intermediate step. I'll need to start over, but I'm going to push my current version into checking and report some issues or make some of the fixes.  
+
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.
  
::: I need to consolidate the multiple alternate translations of the same versesI should be able to do that today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 10:12, 13 October 2015 (EDT)
+
You can't just treat set theory like some simple monolithic thing invented by Georg CantorThe 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)
  
== Protected redirect page ==
+
:[[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.
  
Hello! Sorry to bother you, but I've been through the administrator list and picked you at random. I thought you would be able to edit a protected page which I can't: [[Conservapedia:Administrators]] (a redirect). I'd like you to add the text <code>#Administrators</code> after "Guidelines", so the page redirects to [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Administrators]], which is a more specific and more accurate target. This is a tiny issue, but it's one that bothered me, so I'd be grateful if you could fix it. [[User:Chinken|Chinken]] 18:53, 21 June 2015 (EDT)
+
: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)
  
:Done as requested.  Thanks for your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 27 June 2015 (EDT)
+
== MPR deletion ==
  
== Article for 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)
  
Andy, even in an essay we should not allow obviously wrong statements. In [[Essay:Calming the Storm]], there are a couple of falsehoods which the essay is based on.  The most obvious one is perhaps:
+
== Copy&paste of PD or freely usable material ==
{{cquote|In the Mark verse above, traditional translations insert the word "said" as though Jesus caused the calming by verbally ordering the sea to be still. But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above,}}
+
*The Greek term appears in the Greek above - it wasn't just recognized by the author of the essay!
+
*Therefore, traditional translations have nothing to "insert", they just translate what is present!
+
That's why I think that essay should be deleted. If you think otherwise, you should make your case, and not just repeatedly erase the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki>-tag: Just ignoring my arguments doesn't prove them wrong - or go away... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:37, 28 June 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
The verb λέγω is irregular. Here are the tenses for the third person singular indicative active:
+
{|
+
!colspan="3"|3rd Person Indicative Singular Active
+
|-
+
|Present||λέγει||he says
+
|-
+
|Aorist ||'''εἶπε'''||he said
+
|-
+
|Future ||ἐρεῖ||he will say
+
|-
+
|Perfect ||εἴρηκε||he has said
+
|-
+
|Imperfect ||ἔλεγε||he used to say
+
|-
+
|Pluperfect ||ᾐρήκει||he had said
+
|}
+
 
+
Now look at the sentece: καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ '''εἶπε'''ν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. So, remembering the movable ν, a form of the verb λέγω can be spotted in the verse: the aorist, simply and cleraly meaning "he said". How can you say that "''"λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek''"? And how can you go on to ignore this mistake?
+
 
+
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:57, 28 June 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
===I removed two false statements from your essay===
+
As you won't do it yourself, I stepped up and removed the following two obviously false statements from your essay:
+
{{cquote|Is "rebuked" the correct translation of the Greek term "ἐπιτιμάω", which appears in all three verses above and in connection with other miracles, such as Jesus's lifting of the fever in Luke 4:39?  The real meaning of the Greek "ἐπιτιμάω" is closer to "judge" than to affirmatively rebuke.  The term can even be used in a positive manner, as in "honor" or "raise the price of."  The English term "rebuke" carries the primary connotation of a verbal communication, while in the Greek ἐπιτιμάω has the primary connotation of a non-verbal judgment.}}{{cquote|In the Mark verse above, traditional translations insert the word "said" as though Jesus caused the calming by verbally ordering the sea to be still.  But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above, and where it does appear in Greek versions its real meaning is to "lay", to "cause to lie down," or to "put to sleep."  It only has a connotation of speaking when used in a context of verbal communication (as in putting one word with another), which is not the case here.}}
+
 
+
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:03, 29 June 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
Two months later, still no reaction by you. So, I reverted my edits to your earlier version.  --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 07:31, 9 October 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== [[User:Conservative]]'s editing recently ==
+
 
+
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Conservative He's been editing for about 8 hours straight].  As the quantity of edits increases, the quality is likely to deteriorate.  Perhaps it's time for him to take a break, and you could suggest that a break is worthwhile.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:29, 4 July 2015 (EDT)
+
:GregG, what notable conservative organizations, news organizations, organizations or websites, have cited your articles?  GregG, how many page views has your most popular article received? Has the ''Chicago Tribune'' ever cited one of your articles in non-critical manner? Has [[Concerned Women of America]] ever cited one of your articles? Has one of the largest Christian organizations in the world ever cited one of your articles as a resource to their readers?
+
 
+
:By the way, one of my most recent articles [[Atheism and social justice]] was shared over 75 times at a popular website and the article is only about a few weeks old.
+
 
+
:Instead of concern trolling about the quality of the User: Conservative account edits, why don't you show the editors of the User: Consevative account how its done! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:43, 4 July 2015 (EDT)
+
::One last thing: The User: Conservative account will not be muzzled on [[Independence Day]] due to a concern troll. Let freedom ring! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:19, 4 July 2015 (EDT)
+
Breaks are for pantywaists. No person who won a marathon ever took a break. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:01, 9 October 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Block of Burke39 ==
+
 
+
I see that [[User:Burke39]]'s recent 2-month block has just expired.  Apparently it was for something he wrote about ephebophilia, or pedophilia, or thelarche, or something; I don't know; I haven't looked at the edits.  In any case, after the block expired, he made trivial changes to his signature on earlier edits, and was immediately blocked again.  The new block reason said "still obsessed with aberant sex entries. See: 'Talk:Pedophilia'"  He may or may not be obsessed, but he did not make any nontrivial edits.
+
 
+
The idea that, after being released from incarceration, one can be incarcerated again for the same offense, is the way the justice system of the Communist Soviet Union worked.  It suggests that Burke39 is simply going to be blocked for a week, every week.  This doesn't seem right.
+
 
+
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 16:39, 12 July 2015 (EDT)
+
:Being on the left, I am sure you know how the Communist Soviet Union worked. I am also sure you understand that leftist agitators often made unreasonable demands/accusations which you are doing now.
+
::As playful ad-hominems go, I'd give that about a 6.  I'd give it a 7, but the Soviet Union dissolved over 25 years ago.  You can do better.  I'd give you a nice zinger in reply, but I can't think of one just now.  Sorry.  Leftist agitators?  Nice.  Unreasonable demands?  Well, I don't think Conservapedia should be emulating the Soviet justice system.  In fact, we have this concept in the United States justice system commonly called "double jeopardy".  It's generally frowned upon; in fact, in our legal system, it's forbidden.  Being on the left, I am sure you know how that concept works.
+
 
+
:Burke39 was told to lay off the sexual aberrancy topics. VargasMilan and I don't have a lot of confidence in his edits in these topic areas.  There are lot of topics outside of sexual aberrancy where he can create articles. How about he create a [[Clock]] entry or a [[Model train]] entry or a [[The Trouble with Atheism]] entry? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:57, 12 July 2015 (EDT)
+
::But getting back to the topic at hand, writing about clocks sounds fascinating.  I'm surprised (seriously!) that CP doesn't have an article on this topic.  I'm going to contact him and see if he's enthusiastic about writing such an article.  Not sure about atheism and clocks, though.  We will leave that to you, OK?
+
::But you will have to unblock him, right?
+
::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 10:37, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:His block will expire at 13:23 on Sunday.  I've been in extensive email conversation with him.  He says that he doesn't really know anything interesting or useful to say about clocks or model trains.  I agree with him; articles should be written by people are are at enthusiastic about the topic.  (By the way, where did you come up with those two topics?  He doesn't remember ever expressing an interest in them.)
+
 
+
:What he wants to write about are topics related to Freemasonry, Judaism, and antisemitism.  From our email exchanges, I think he will do very well in these areas.
+
 
+
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:56, 17 July 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Opinion on Bernie Sanders ==
+
 
+
Hi Dr. Schlafly,
+
 
+
Given a scenario where you were forced to pick between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for president, who would you pick? I was interested in hearing your opinion and justification about this matter.
+
 
+
Regards,
+
[[User:TMullis|TMullis]] 15:48, 13 July 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:I am postive he would stay home rather than choose a vote between two far-left septuagenarians.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:20, 13 July 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
::Still trolling, huh, "TMullis"? You just can't help it but to prove us right all the time. Guess it's a weakness. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:16, 13 July 2015 (EDT)
+
:::If I was an American I'd abstain or vote no confidence. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] 21:26, 13 July 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:I would write-in a candidate, or vote in the election but not vote for anyone for that office.  I never vote for a pro-[[abortion]] candidate, even if a Republican.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:42, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
+
::Bernie Sanders doesn't have the stomach for aggressive fundraising and he doesn't seem to want to delegate that out to someone who does. So his chances of being the next U.S. president are effectively zero. Eventually, his campaign supply lines will be stretched too thin. Barring her scandals weighing her further down in a much more significant way and barring health issues, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee. She does not have any reluctance when it comes to campaign fundraising. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:23, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
+
:::Sanders is attracting Democrats who used to support Warren, Biden, and others. While the media played up the "Sanders surge," Democratic support for Hillary actually edged up from 62 percent to 63 percent.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html] I find it difficult to fathom why anyone would vote for corruption queen Hillary, but numerous polls testify that she has a solid base of support this time around, unlike 2008. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 06:47, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
+
It is easy to fathom why someone would vote for corruption queen Hillary. For countries which have elections, they often get the leaders they deserve. Corrupt people vote for corrupt politicians. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:21, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Sexuality topic ban ==
+
::::My main interest right now is going to be editing articles about anti-Semitism, Judaism, and Freemasonry. But I'm interested in some editing of sexuality articles. If I do more thorough research before editing these articles, and I do not put any liberal pro-perversion edits in, and I also edit other topics and do not exclusively edit sexuality topics, can I edit sexuality articles and have the topic ban removed? The reason I have not been editing much since the block expiring is because I want to thoroughly research every topic I edit before I edit it. For example, I'm going to thoroughly research anti-Semitism, Judaism and Freemasonry before editing those topics. And the same will be the case for sexuality if my topic ban is removed there. Paul Bustion [[User:Burke39]] 17:11, 20 July 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::::This is an educational encyclopedia.  Please be guided in particular by Rule 3 in [[Conservapedia:Commandments]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:56, 20 July 2015 (EDT)
+
::::Ok, I understand. As long as my edits to the sexuality topic area are "informative, family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language" as the rule 3 statement requires and they comply with the other rules as well, and as long as that is not the only topic area I edit, am I allowed to edit sexuality related articles?Paul Bustion 23:11, 20 July 2015 (EDT)
+
:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm sorry, I should have clarified this. My screen signature is Paul Bustion, my real life name, so maybe that was confusing. I'm User:Burke39. VargasMilan and Conservative topic banned me from sexuality articles. They said I have a "creepy/bizarre liberal" viewpoint on sexual issues. I'm requesting that the topic ban be removed. I agree that if it is removed I will only make sourced, informative, non-explicit/family friendly, and anti-perversion edits. I will not promote deviant sexuality, I will not make unsourced statements, I will not be explicit in descriptions. I also will edit other topic areas besides sexuality. If I agree to all of that can my topic ban on sexuality articles be abolished?Paul Bustion [[User:Burke39]] 00:43, 21 July 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
::::My main point was to ask if the topic ban against me editing sexuality articles could be abolished? Can it?Paul Bustion 02:21, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
+
The main reason I put the topical ban on you is that I don't have the time or inclination to want to monitor your edits and I thought you were irritating VargasMilan with all the edits on abnormal sexuality that sometimes took a liberal point of view (which is probably because many of the experts in psychology have a irreligious/liberal point of view).
+
 
+
Why don't you do anti-Semitism, Judaism, and Freemasonry edits for 30 days and then the topical ban could be lifted as long as you do what you said you were going to do above. I think that would be a suitable compromise. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:52, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:He hasn't explained himself yet.  Two months ago I noted that you have to be a kind of like an expert to treat these topics conservatively.  Much of what Burke is rehearsing is prior mistakes he made that he should have known not to do in the first place, if he were an expert.  He hasn't demonstrated expertise.  We also don't have an explanation for the sockpuppets with similar names and interests that appeared after he was blocked.  Shouldn't we look into those first to make sure he's not being insincere and/or trolling us?  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:12, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
Andy and Cons:  Thank you for attending to this in a positive way.  I'm confident that Paul will do well in his future edits here.  From my email exchanges with him, he seems to be a knowledgeable, earnest, and forthright person.  I believe that the suggestion above (stay away from sexuality for 30 days, and until his expertise and forthrightness have been established) is a reasonable one.  He may well turn out to be quite an expert in topics like antisemitism.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 16:45, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
+
:VargasMilan, thanks for you input.
+
 
+
:Why don't you workout some counter proposal to mine as far as the topic ban. Perhaps extending the topic ban to 90 or 120 or 180 days or a year or 2 years or 5 years. I suggest working out something out with you, Andy and Burke39.
+
 
+
:And then if Burke39 contributes poor content to sexuality articles down the pike, the topical ban could be made longer the second time around or be made permanent.
+
 
+
:On the other hand, if you feel strongly the topic ban should be made permanent due to the sockpuppets with similar names, etc., then say so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
::He should be an editor in good standing at Conservapedia before even asking for the privilege.  If that takes three months of brilliant editing, good.  If that takes a year of so-so editing and maybe a probational period where he does alright, okay.  If he shows more of the same problems, probably not.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:26, 23 July 2015 (EDT)
+
:::That sounds good to me. And since it is Andy's wiki, I will let you, Andy, and Burke39 work things out. Andy gave Burke39 the green light to edit sexuality related articles pursuant to the conditions that Burke39 said he would impose on himself. Perhaps, you can convince Andy otherwise. I am on the record as siding with you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:44, 23 July 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
Burke39:
+
 
+
You should feel free to edit articles on any topic, such as the ones you suggested (anti-Semitism, Judaism, and Freemasonry), but I'd recommend staying away from sexuality topics.  I don't really understand Conservapedia's stance on sexuality, and I never edit on such topics.  Don't fret over just why people wanted you to stay away; I never figured out what their gripe was either.  Just stay away.
+
 
+
Please don't get too stressed out over just what Cons and VM think of you.  Proceed normally.  Don't worry about "He should be an editor in good standing at Conservapedia before even asking for the privilege."  Just stay away from sexuality, the way I stay away from creationism.
+
 
+
Now there is no guarantee that you won't be arbitrarily blocked for reasons that seem frivolous.  (In fact there's no guarantee of anything in this life, is there?)  These things happen.  I was [[User_talk:SamHB/Archive_1|blocked by Ed Poor]] 7 years ago, with no explanation (he didn't put any explanation on my user page.)  Several attempts, over the next few years, to get him to explain what this "probation" meant, were unsuccessful.  Eventually I just forgot about it, and so did he.  We [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ada_Lovelace&action=history collaborated amicably] after that.
+
 
+
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:39, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== New users having problems registering an account ==
+
 
+
Someone contacted me about registering a Conservapedia account and said he was getting an error message.  I said I would register an account for him and I got the same error message.
+
 
+
Here is the error message:
+
 
+
[fb766450] 2015-08-04 19:52:00: Fatal exception of type MWException 
+
 
+
Please let me know when the bug is fixed.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:56, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:The bug is fixed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:21, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
+
::Thanks.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:58, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Attempts to prove E=mc<sup>2</sup> ==
+
 
+
Wait a minute, Andy.  Isn't the transformation of hydrogen to helium a fusion reaction rather than a nuclear-fission reaction?  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 15:05, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Yes, great point about the word choice.  The terminology is corrected in [[attempts to prove E=mc2]].  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:34, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Rehearing en banc denied in Sissel ==
+
 
+
I heard this week that the D.C. Circuit [http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/08/health-insurance-mandate-survives-again/ denied rehearing en banc] of ''Sissel'' (the case that brought an origination clause challenge to Obamacare), with four judges dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc (although they indicated they would find no violation of the origination clause because of the shell bill tactic).  The challengers are planning to go to the Supreme Court.  What are your thoughts?  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 12:58, 8 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Four judges dissented, but not because they disagreed with the outcome, as you astutely point out.  The rationale in the dissent was thereby disappointing to me.
+
 
+
:But four dissents is better than no dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing, and the attorneys for Sissel will petition the U.S. Supreme for a writ of ''[[certiorari]]''.  It requires only four votes to grant cert., not five.  Hopefully cert. will be granted.  This is an issue of enormous national importance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:25, 8 August 2015 (EDT)
+
::If the ''King'' challengers couldn't even get four votes on their side for the final decision, I'm not sure Sissel is going to fare much better before the Supreme Court.
+
::Also, you might be interested in an arbitration development: after over three years of delay, the liberal California Supreme Court released a decision last week in ''Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.'' in which all the justices agreed that the terms in the arbitration clause that the plaintiff challenged were not unconscionable under California law.  (The court did not look kindly upon the arguments made by the plaintiff purchaser of a Mercedes that an arbitral appeal would be prohibitively expensive for him.)  [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 19:54, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::This is good news about the California Supreme Court upholding an arbitration clause, right?  I guess the adage that "bad facts make bad law" has a helpful converse:  good facts, in this case an Mercedes-Benz buyer complaining about the costs of arbitration, makes good law!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:15, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
+
::::I think the California Supreme Court reached the right result in the case.  However, it should be noted that the two major arbitration forums have limits on consumer arbitration fees regardless of ability to pay (AAA is $200, as adopted in March 2013 to replace a schedule that had unlimited fees for consumers in cases involving more than $75,000 or non-monetary relief; JAMS is $250), and the most recent serious scholarship defending large arbitration fees comes from 2006 by Ware (who previously criticized caps on consumer arbitration fees that did not take into account the consumer's ability to pay) and Drahozal (who argued that contingent fee lawyers should be able to pay arbitration fees and still save as compared to court costs).  This may be moot if, as I advocate (and you can help with this advocacy!), Congress sets minimum standards for all consumer arbitration cases instead of more disruptive legislation like the Arbitration Fairness Act.  When the CFPB predictably attempts to ban all consumer arbitration clauses in financial contracts, I plan to propose a rule based on the minimum standards as a compromise.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 22:21, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::::This is great information.  I'll help build some more entries about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:04, 11 August 2015 (EDT)
+
::::::[https://www.classdefenseblog.com/2015/08/man-bites-dog-california-supreme-court-unanimously-rejects-unconscionability-challenge-to-consumer-arbitration-provision/ Mayer Brown recently wrote a corporate-side write-up of ''Sanchez''].  Also, feel free to ask me any and all of your consumer arbitration questions.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 22:52, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
+
::::::Also, [http://www.ballardspahr.com/alertspublications/legalalerts/2015-08-11-ca-sup-crt-upholds-arbitration-clause-unconscionability-remains-a-defense-to-arbitration.aspx Ballard Spahr has a client alert].  [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 22:55, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::::::Those are good links to helpful resources.  Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:10, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== New Hampshire Primary ==
+
 
+
I took the liberty of moving the page on the New Hampshire primary from [[NH primary]] to [[New Hampshire Primary]]. Revert it if you want but I feel this version is better and is in the same style as the page you created for the Iowa Primary. [[User:FFAF|FFAF]] ([[User talk:FFAF|talk]]) 00:31, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Good improvement for [[NH primary]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:52, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Math markup code broken ==
+
 
+
Help!  It seems that, whenever I edit anything within math markup (<nowiki><math>...</math></nowiki>), I get a big red "Failed to parse (Missing <code>texvc</code> executable. Please see math/README to configure.)"  This obviously got broken at the time of the recent upgrade.  It seems that all existing math markup code is OK, because it is in a cache somewhere.  But the slightest change to any math markup gets the error.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:17, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Thanks, I'm aware of this and am working on it.  Suggestions are welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 01:12, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
::Math problem is fixed now.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:41, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::That's wonderful that you got working so quickly.  I had not been optimistic about a quick resolution, and my reply to your "Suggestions are welcome" wasn't going to be very cheery.  You see, we had a similar problem from a software upgrade over at Ameriwiki, and fixing it was a drawn-out and frustrating process.  And I doubted that Fergus Mason (or anyone at RW!) was going to be inclined to help.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 19:21, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
::::Thanks again for raising the issue of the math software problem.  I'd quote [[Proverbs]] or [[Psalms]] for the ability to fix the bug, but I can't think of a particularly appropriate verse right now for successful debugging.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:11, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
+
::::Well (from my standpoint), there's always Matthew 7:7  :-)  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:25, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Yikes! ==
+
 
+
Andy, the last seven days of edits seem to disappeared. Has this site been hacked? [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] ([[User talk:EJamesW|talk]]) 18:29, 25 August 2015 (EDT)
+
:Andy upgraded the Wikimedia version being used to one that is more resistant to hacking. So it is doubtful that the website was hacked. Just some snafu. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:46, 25 August 2015 (EDT)
+
:It wasn't a hack.  Bad computer crashes occur, unfortunately.  Thank [[God]] for backups.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:12, 25 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
What about an announcement at the main-page? Perhaps even a short apology for the inconvenience? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 02:10, 26 August 2015 (EDT)
+
::Man, that's the second time in a few years where you've lost an entire week's worth of contributions. I can't recall such a thing ever happening at Wikipedia -- to what do you ascribe the difference? [[User:SaulJ|SaulJ]] ([[User talk:SaulJ|talk]]) 14:25, 26 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::More of a [[Bible|spiritual]] focus here than at [[Wikipedia]].  And I don't think the loss of some talk-page rants or routine housecleaning is going to matter in the [[long run]].  It wasn't a full week, and many of the substantive edits have been restored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:41, 26 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
I have not been able to recover my user page.  I made significant changes to it, changing the "semi-retired, but not dead" title to something better.  You may recall having asked me, while replying to something else, to do that.  I put a lot of work into that change, and I can't recover it from my browser cache.  I also didn't make a copy of the file itself, though I often make copies.  I was going to do it the next day.  (Hand of God here?)  Is there any chance you can recover it for me?  I consider it a very substantive change, referring to my philosophy of what topics I edit on.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:10, 26 August 2015 (EDT)
+
:Perhaps, as Schlafly noted, you're not being spiritual enough. Or too spiritual. He's hard to figure out. [[User:SaulJ|SaulJ]] ([[User talk:SaulJ|talk]]) 23:37, 26 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:SamHB, it should be in your browser cache.  I will take a look also in what I have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:50, 26 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:'''UPDATE''':  I just restored the lost edits to your user page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:47, 27 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
*IIRC, this is the second time that a couple of hundred edits were lost. Andy, you say that nothing important went missing, but it is tedious to repeat "routine housecleaning". At the moment, I don't feel inclined to add links to the verses of the CBP: that is nothing which I should have to do over and over again.
+
*I get 500-errors quite often when I try to visit the site. So, your technical problems haven't disappeared yet. How likely is another "bad computer crush"?
+
*This wiki hasn't  much traffic: 500 edits in a  week isn't that impressive. I don't think that this will improve much, especially when you show such contempt for your editors: "''I don't think the loss of some talk-page rants or routine housecleaning is going to matter in the [[long run]]''!" In the ''long run'', all wikis will disappear. It's the middle distance which counts!
+
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 07:39, 27 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
::I found that Bing.com has cached pages from the six days gone lost. I will be adding my work shortly. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] ([[User talk:Jpatt|talk]]) 11:52, 27 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for finding and restoring my user page.  While you were doing that, I was redoubling/retripling/requadrupling my efforts to extract the information out of my Firefox cache.  The explanations I found on the internet, explaining how to actually get the data back, all seemed to go off into the weeds at that point.  Then I found a utility that actually does the job correctly.  It's downloadable freeware.  Though it's not commercial, I know we're very sensitive about "spamming link to external sites".  May I post its URL here?  I figure that your talk page is the right place for it, since this seems to be where people are discussing the crash.
+
I will be restoring more material over the next few days.  Thanks again.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:18, 27 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:That's wonderful, SamHB!  Yes, please do post its URL here, though presumably that works only for Firefox (which is a superb browser).
+
::The program is "mozillacacheview", at [http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/mozillacacheview.zip http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/mozillacacheview.zip].  No installation procedure or other messy stuff.  Just a zip file with mozillacachereview.exe and a couple of documentation files.  Unzip it and run it.  It's for Firefox, though the web site seems to have utilities for other browsers also.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:42, 27 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:At this point, I estimate that only about 50 substantive edits by all users have not yet been restored from the data outage.  I have most of those (thanks to another very skillful editor) and will restore much of them (other than the ones that SamHB is taking care of) over time.  There is no point in restoring the talk page or headline edits, which are time sensitive and worth trimming later anyway.
+
 
+
:AugustO, may I humbly recommend [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#13:3|Matthew 13:3]], the parable of the scattered seeds.  By the way, I think the span references are better positioned at the beginning of the verse itself, rather than the verse number, so that when the link is clicked all of the verse appears to the viewer.  More generally, thanks much for your patience and for your efforts.
+
 
+
:I've learned much from this mishap and am taking steps to improve for next time.  The silver lining in setbacks is that they establish a good baseline for improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:29, 27 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
::It would be a good idea to restore all the missing edits from [[Conservapedia:Community Portal]] if you can. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] ([[User talk:EJamesW|talk]]) 17:58, 27 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
===FYI===
+
That's a frequent message I get when trying to visit Conservapedia:
+
{|
+
|style="background:lightgrey"|Internal Server Error
+
 
+
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
+
 
+
Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@conservapedia.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
+
 
+
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
+
 
+
Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
+
Apache/2.2.23 (Unix) mod_hive/5.0 mod_ssl/2.2.23 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_bwlimited/1.4 Server at www.conservapedia.com Port 80
+
|}
+
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 07:18, 28 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== [[Worst Church Hymns]] ==
+
 
+
I hope you found my contributions helpful.  George Weigel's ''Evangelical Catholicism'' (2013) also contains a critique of modern Catholic music.  It's at the Firestone Library here at Princeton (I returned it so I can't refer to anything off-hand).  [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 22:06, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Your edits are superb.  I've learned from them, and added a section about additional criticism by Weigel.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:14, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Debates ==
+
 
+
Do you guys still do debates? I have a few interesting ideas for them--[[User:Scatach|Scatach]] ([[User talk:Scatach|talk]]) 20:59, 31 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Sure, and here are many examples: <nowiki>[[Category:Conservapedia_Debates]]</nowiki>.  Just create a new entry with "Debate:_______", with the question of the debate filling in the blank.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:08, 31 August 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Possible fix/fixes to 500 permission errors when editing ==
+
 
+
Andy, some users said they commonly receive 500 permissions when editing.
+
 
+
Here is a possible solution:
+
 
+
"A Permissions Error. In most cases, a 500 Internal Server Error is due to an incorrect permission on one or more files or folders. In most of those cases, an incorrect permission on a PHP and CGI script is to blame. These should usually be set at 0775 (-rwxr-)."[http://pcsupport.about.com/od/findbyerrormessage/a/500servererror.htmxr-x]
+
 
+
Also, other potential causes: [http://pcsupport.about.com/od/findbyerrormessage/a/500servererror.htmxr-x Causes of 500 permission errors]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:17, 1 September 2015 (EDT)
+
:You appeared to do a great job in fixing the 500 errors which came up frequently for many users.  I don't get them at all anymore. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:59, 26 September 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Advice on dealing with an egregious attack on arbitration ==
+
  
 
Hi Andy,
 
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 articlesIt 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 />
I just came across this [http://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/forced-arbitration-license-to-steal-47611/ diatribe on arbitration]As you might pick up from reading the rant, it contains numerous disparaging falsehoods about how arbitration works. Although the author provided contact information at the bottom of his editorial, I'm not sure how useful it would be to offer him in-depth corrections of all the misunderstandings his post exhibits. What are your thoughts on dealing with this?  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 23:01, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
+
Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 19:28, 20 June 2019 (EDT)
  
:The editorial makes many substantive pointsPerhaps one counterargument is that in the absence of arbitration, much of the payment goes to attorneys rather than to consumers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:57, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
+
:Infogalactic is not [[public domain]], but is under a Creative Commons type of licenseSo, 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)
  
== Thankyou ==
+
== A different name for the "Gish Gallop" ==
  
Hi Andy, thanks for the account promotion, I was getting sick of having to type in Rome before any edit went through! (you may want to see if there is any reason why the skipcaptcha is currently stuck on that question as it seems to have only asked that question for the past week or so for me atleast). [[User:FFAF|FFAF]] ([[User talk:FFAF|talk]]) 12:53, 9 September 2015 (EDT)
+
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)
  
== CFPB arbitration hearing 10/7 in Denver ==
+
== Image question ==
  
[http://www.cfpbmonitor.com/2015/09/24/cfpb-schedules-october-7-field-hearing-on-arbitration-alan-kaplinsky-to-represent-industry/ The CFPB is holding an arbitration hearing in Denver on October 7.] Do you have any plans on offering comment at that hearing to rebut the mainstream media's predictable attacks on arbitration? (I don't think the hearing will work in my schedule.)  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 19:18, 25 September 2015 (EDT)
+
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)
  
:That's very interesting.  I wonder if the CFPB will accept written comments in lieu of oral testimony at the hearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:17, 26 September 2015 (EDT)
+
== Conservative Sports ==
::It's a field hearing, so I think the only commentary at the hearing will be in person (although some pro-business groups have published their own press releases in conjunction with previous CFPB arbitration activities).  There should be a formal notice and comment process as part of the arbitration rulemaking, which I plan to participate in.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 10:14, 26 September 2015 (EDT)
+
:::Very impressive.  Please let me know when the rulemaking opens up, and I'll consider submitting something also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:41, 26 September 2015 (EDT)
+
The CFPB has posted its proposal [http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201510_cfpb_small-business-review-panel-packet-explaining-the-proposal-under-consideration.pdf here].  The proposal prohibits arbitration clauses from being used to block class action litigation and requires arbitration awards to be submitted to the CFPB.  The proposal does not prohibit the use of arbitration clauses outside of the class action context (yay!) nor does it require individual arbitrations to comply with minimum standards (boo!, although the CFPB says that it is not considering this proposal because there is insufficient data on individual arbitrations since there are so few of them).  I'm looking forward to watching the Denver hearing this afternoon.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 10:28, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
+
  
== Image upload request ==
+
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)
  
Hi, I have been working on this page - [[John Key]] and wondering if you could upload an image of Key for the page? I'd like to have it like the templates you have for US presidents (tenure, party etc). Many thanks! [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 15:51, 4 October 2015 (EDT)
+
== PD template unlock request ==
  
:Done as requestedThanks for the suggestion!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:55, 10 October 2015 (EDT)
+
Hello,<br />
::Thanks so much for uploading the image! John Key is such a good example of right-wing pragmatism over here in NZ - we are very lucky to have him as PM. Hope you in the States get someone similar. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 16:09, 11 October 2015 (EDT)
+
[[Template:PD tag]] is used heavily on our image collectionIt 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)
  
== Trying to undo vandalism... ==
+
::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)
  
...I am currently trying to clean up after a vandal on your wiki, but am stymied by having to answer a silly question after every revision I make. Your current anti-vandal system is both too weak to actually prevent vandalism and too much of a pain in the neck to encourage editors to help out. [[User:W.Sidney|W.Sidney]] ([[User talk:W.Sidney|talk]]) 23:05, 4 October 2015 (EDT)
+
== Respectful disagreement ==
  
:Problem solved for your account. Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:28, 6 October 2015 (EDT)
+
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.
  
== JustMyTwoCents ==
+
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)
  
Hi; I'm interested in improving this site through both adding new content mainly analyzing the political nuances of various popular media and overall helping make the place more fair and inviting, but I was banned with no reason given, and all my contributions reverted without explanation; think you could help me out here / make sure my contributions aren't impeded? [[User:JustMyTwoCents|JustMyTwoCents]] ([[User talk:JustMyTwoCents|talk]]) 00:00, 16 October 2015 (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)
  
:Can you cite a few examples of reversions that you think were unjustified?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:17, 16 October 2015 (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.
  
Example: at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=EarthBound&action=history] I added accurate information to the article regarding political and topical elements in the game, and this was removed with no reason given despite the previous version of the article having no content relating to conservative politics. [[User:JustMyTwoCents|JustMyTwoCents]] ([[User talk:JustMyTwoCents|talk]]) 00:27, 16 October 2015 (EDT)
+
::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)
  
Eh? (simply looking for your OKAY) [[User:JustMyTwoCents|JustMyTwoCents]] ([[User talk:JustMyTwoCents|talk]]) 21:18, 17 October 2015 (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)
  
:The reversion you mentioned was part of a group of reversions.  It is OK for you to restore the edits on that particularly entry (EarthBound).
+
== Insight from Singapore's wealthiest man ==
  
:The [[bullying]] entry has an informative introduction of general application, and displacing that with a section about so-called bullying in school is not an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:34, 17 October 2015 (EDT)
+
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)
  
WTH is up with the [[hate crime]] page? Permission to correct it, please? [[User:JustMyTwoCents|JustMyTwoCents]] ([[User talk:JustMyTwoCents|talk]]) 13:26, 18 October 2015 (EDT)
+
== Unlock request ==
  
:We don't have an entry yet on [[Christian bashing]].  How about starting there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:29, 18 October 2015 (EDT)
+
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 created a [[Gay bashing]] article which demonstrates that most gay bashing is homosexual on homosexual bashing. Citing eminent forensic scientists, it shows that homosexual on homosexual bashing is often exceptionally brutal.
+
: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)
  
::JustMyTwoCents, put that in your [[homosexual agenda]] pipe and smoke it! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:39, 18 October 2015 (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)
  
Pardon me, but your "additions" to that page seem to serve only to undermine the point that gay bashing is wrong, and grossly understates its harmfulness and status as a serious problem.
+
== MPR ==
  
"What's this about a homosexual agenda pipe"? [[User:JustMyTwoCents|JustMyTwoCents]] ([[User talk:JustMyTwoCents|talk]]) 16:55, 18 October 2015 (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: [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)
:::Understates? Where are your statistics and expert witnesses? 
+
  
:::The article says that gay bashing is not wrong? Doesn't the [[gay bashing]] article use words such as brutal, violence, overkill and murder?  JustMyTwoCents, you are WRONG and a LIAR! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:21, 18 October 2015 (EDT)
+
== KIWIFarms ==
 
+
== Monarchies ==
+
 
+
I'm curious: which of your contradictory statements is true:
+
 
+
<span style="color:#B2B7F2;font-size:30px;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-weight:bold;text-align:left;padding:10px 10px;">&laquo;</span>'''''There were no monarchies at the time of Christ'''''<span style="color:#B2B7F2;font-size:30px;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-weight:bold;text-align:left;padding:10px 10px;">&raquo;</span> ([[Talk:Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)|Andy Schlafly, 00:47, 21 October 2015 (EDT)]])
+
 
+
'''or'''
+
 
+
<span style="color:#B2B7F2;font-size:30px;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-weight:bold;text-align:left;padding:10px 10px;">&laquo;</span>'''''Augustus established a constitutional monarchy rather than a true republic, because the Senate's role became only advisory.'''''<span style="color:#B2B7F2;font-size:30px;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-weight:bold;text-align:left;padding:10px 10px;">&raquo;</span> (Andy Schlafly, [[World History Lecture Four#Birth of the Roman Empire|WHL4: Birth of the Roman Empire]])
+
 
+
Or perhaps the Roman Empire was not a ''real monarchy''? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 07:37, 29 October 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:So? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 06:28, 30 October 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
::Great point.  But a "constitutional monarchy" is not a "king".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 10:03, 30 October 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::And the moon is not a green cheese. Which of two the statements above is correct, which isn't? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 13:54, 30 October 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::Context matters.  My reference to no monarchies at the time of Christ referred not to a lack of Caesars, but to to the lack of "kings" in the modern English sense of the word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:56, 30 October 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
::::#The context was the discussion of the term "majesty" ([http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majesty Merriam Webster]:  a great and impressively beautiful quality) - we weren't talking specifically about kings. I cannot judge your ''internal'' context, I've to go with the things you write - and in the written context, it wasn't obvious for me that you wanted to say: "''There were no kingdoms at the time of Christ''"
+
::::#However, the statement "''There were no kingdoms at the time of Christ''" is wrong, too: Herod the Great was around as King of Judea in Christ's early days. Until 38 A.D. Artabanus III was King of Parthia (which covered parts of modern Turkey and Iran, not far away from Judea), which had many contacts to the Roman Empire!
+
::::#As for the "lack of "kings" in the modern English sense of the word": there was a lack of millers, carpenters, bakers, farmers, etc. in "the modern English sense of the word", too - but we still use the vocabulary.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 16:56, 30 October 2015 (EDT)
+
 
+
== A great disappointment ==
+
 
+
Dear Andy,
+
 
+
As someone with an autism-spectrum disorder, I am greatly disappointed at the disparagement of autism presented in the [[Atheism and autism]] "article".  Autism is a trait that God has endowed some of us with, for better or for worse.  Is this kind of drivel that should be featured on the Trustworthy Encyclopedia?
+
 
+
(As mentioned on my userpage, I have begun pursuing new opportunities and am therefore going to limit my contributions to Conservapedia, but when I found out about this, I could not pass up the opportunity to express my severe disappointment.)
+
 
+
Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 09:02, 1 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:Greg, I greatly appreciate your feedback.  I'm disappointed that the entry does not explore a possible link between autism and vaccination.  Apparently the Amish have low autism rates.  Do they have low vaccination rates also?  But I don't find anything in the article to be offensive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:27, 1 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
::"''I'm disappointed that the entry does not explore a possible link between autism and vaccination.''" Until you deleted [[User:Conservative]]'s comment, this was only the second most asinine statement on this page. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:23, 2 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:::Within a minute of searching I found that my intuition was correct: "the relatively low overall vaccination rate in the [Amish] community," observes a pro-vaccination article in ''The Atlantic''. [http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/why-are-anti-vaxxers-rallying-behind-the-amish/384151/]
+
 
+
::::Also have to admit my disappointment regarding that statement as well. I'm a firm believer in Roman Catholicism and if anything I utterly hate Atheists for their trying to persecute and even exterminate us Christians and feel if I were to ever let myself become an atheist, I'd inevitably blow up churches and try to wipe out religion just to show God doesn't exist, yet I'm autistic, certainly high-functioning aspergers. I actually DO serve God. Granted, it's more due to utter terror of him, feeling that if I don't, he'll vaporize me and worse, which ultimately stemmed from Raiders of the Lost Ark, but nonetheless, I do actually believe God exists and serve him. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:24, 29 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
== discussion for aschlafly ==
+
 
+
Good day, Mr. Schlafly,
+
 
+
''(Main questions are marked with Q#.)'' I'm curious as to why there's such hostility toward atheists, specifically, on this site, given that atheists make up such a small percentage of the population, and some evangelicals hold the position that atheists do not exist ([[Denials that atheists exist]]). So, '''Q1) "Why is there so much hostility toward, and misinformation about, atheists?"'''
+
 
+
I ask because I'm an atheist, and I find it extremely odd (specifically, I'm an "agnostic atheist", referring to what I don't believe in, and a "rationalist Humanist", referring to what I do believe in). If atheists do not exist, then how can these imaginary concept of beings be as horrible as this site portrays us?
+
 
+
What really intrigues me &ndash; besides just the obvious hatred for atheists &ndash; is how the [[Islam]] page actually somewhat-reflects the positions of Muslims and the page isn't extremely derogatory (like the [[atheism]] page is), and same with [[Judaism]], [[Wicca]], and [[Buddhism]]. Although each of these pages have a conservative Christian bias (which is to be expected), what intrigues me is how these pages can (mostly) accurately represent them, despite in your view, they would all be following "false gods" (or for Judaism, an "incomplete God"). But for the atheist page, it seems as if every attempt is made to make us look evil, as if we were "Set/Satan" himself.
+
 
+
Often, it seems as if people fight what they view to be a threat &ndash; '''Q2) "Is the atheism page established that way because you view atheism as a threat?"'''
+
 
+
I understand that there are some outspoken atheists, such as Richard Dawkins et al, who share their views and encourage their views be accepted; but then again, there are exponentially more outspoken Christians, who share their views and encourage their views be accepted. Yet, a Christian earns the title "preacher", while the atheist earns the title "militant atheist", why the discrepancy? Are out spoken preachers, therefore, "militant Christians"? And '''Q3) "Why do all atheists get lumped in with the Dawkin's personality on this site?"'''
+
 
+
This leads me to my next point &ndash; my parents are conservative Christians who believe the universe is 6,000 years old, I'm a liberal Humanist (with affinities toward the rationalism of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and our Constitution) who believes what all the scientists say, and yet, we get along fine. I don't push my views on them, nor they, on me. I live in St. Louis city &ndash; most people I know are evangelical Christians, Roman Catholics, and there's a pretty high Sunni Muslim population here (and I've become cool with several of them). I've specifically sought out nonbelievers to befriend, because I've felt the need to get away from (my own, subjective perception) "the crazies". Many of my nonbelieving friends are exactly the same way &ndash; we don't hate you all, contrary to what you might think. Yes, we get irritated with you guys, sometimes, and the opposite is also true. Nonetheless, my Christian family and friends know me to be honest (in that I literally don't lie, even if I might find the consequence undesirable), trustworthy, giving (people have known they could ask me for financial help, and they joke about how I always just say "sure", without asking why - and no, they don't take advantage of me), helpful (people always know they can count on me to help with moving, projects, etc), they respect me for my service, and I'm now studying Business. Some of my Christian friends and acquaintances have stated that I'm "more Christian" and "a better person" than anyone else they know. Similarly, I respect each of them for their own merits. The difference between us? I don't believe things like: 1) males and females of the millions of species on Earth could have fit on a ship that was only slightly bigger than the one I was stationed on, which was uncomfortable living quarters for a mere 300 sailors; 2) I don't believe that light, which have been traveling from formed galaxies traveling at lightspeed billions of years ago, was created in-transit, as to deceive humans into thinking the universe is that old, 3) for the sake of testing our faith in a book where the main character mistakenly calls the mustard seed the smallest seed in the earth, for the sake of illustrating a parable, to protect us from a concept of Hell, which anyone advocating a "loving God" could take seriously, when there's so much evidence to the contrary. ''(I understand this may have come across as an attack, but it's not intended that way &ndash; I'm merely demonstrating my own perception of the Bible versus science, and how I, as someone who's loved by my community, can't reasonably accept the book that you advocate is the only way to be a moral and good person.)'' '''Q4: For people who have theological and intellectual reasons for disbelieving the Bible &ndash; and there are many of us, as we study it, along with other religious books &ndash; yet we're just the average, kind person you might mistake for being a Christian, how can you feel justified to leave such demeaning content up on your website?'''
+
 
+
I understand that there are unanswered questions that rejecting faith leaves open, and I do hope that the questions will all be answered one day. "How did abiogenesis occur?" "What caused the universal expansion?" Well, I don't know, but I can't find peace with accepting answers from books that I perceive to be filled with theological and irrational holes, merely because I demand to know the answer to life's biggest questions right now, no matter the legitimacy of it. Still, in a world where a person should be judged by their actions, and not by their labels, why are we hated above all other groups, when most of us just live our lives, not bothering anyone else?
+
 
+
'''''This discussion is intended for Aschlafly, alone, and was written in good faith. I'm seeking some answers from you, sir, that I hope you'll answer, as well as relaying my own position and lifestyle to you, to clear up some misconceptions that may exist. I'd hope and expect that you wouldn't take offense to my own views, since my views are stated as only my own.''''' [[User:ConstitutioSocialist|ConstitutioSocialist]] ([[User talk:ConstitutioSocialist|talk]]) 13:58, 4 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:I will answer these questions.
+
::1. Atheists have been extremely hostile towards Christians, especially recently, and as proof of this one has to read the news on a daily basis.  You atheists are hated because you are forcing - and I do mean '''FORCING''' - your religious beliefs on the rest of the country.  Tell me, Mr. Atheist, just what kind of individual is it that has to file a lawsuit to force someone else not to pray in a public school?  Is it the kind of individual that you want to sit down and have a cup of tea with while he tries to strip away your First Amendment rights?
+
::2.  Atheists have been hostile to this website.  Conservapedia espouses family and Christian values, as well as providing evidence against certain subjects near and dear to atheists hearts, such as evolution.  These atheists don't like it, and they show it.  To me and most everyone here, that is tantamount to ''forcing your religious beliefs on this site''.
+
::3.  You said "Still, in a world where a person should be judged by their actions, and not by their labels, why are we hated above all other groups, when most of us just live our lives, not bothering anyone else?"  You are bothering everyone else, and unfortunately that kind of bothering as you said has the intent to send an individual straight to hell.  You can believe what you want to believe, but when it comes to proclaiming the Gospel - either in this website or in a public park - just who are you to stop it?  Because one way or the other, you're going to find out whether or not we're right.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 14:27, 4 November 2015 (EST)
+
Dawkian atheists are not shown as the only types of atheists as can be seen by: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_anger#The_6_types_of_atheists_and_anger.2Fviolence 6 types of atheists] and [[Atheist factions]] (which is introduced near the beginning of Conservapedia's main atheism article).  Also, the main atheism article says, "Although anti-theists, militant atheists and new atheists give the general public the perception that atheists are exceedingly angry individuals, research indicates that in the United States the atheist population as a whole is not angrier than the general population (see: [[Various types of atheists/non-believers and anger]])."[http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Angry_and_bitter_demeanor_of_militant_atheists_and_anti-theists]
+
 
+
Next, you wrote: "Some of my Christian friends and acquaintances have stated that I'm "more Christian" and "a better person" than anyone else they know." Notice that they did not say that you are "more atheist" than anyone else they know.  What great moral teachers are well-known as far as atheism? Jesus sets the highest moral standards, not atheism. And then there is the matter of atheist history and its very checkered past. See: [[History of Atheism|History of atheism]] and [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Moral failures of the atheist population]].
+
 
+
Lastly, I don't see atheism as a threat. See: [[Desecularization]] AND In the Western World atheism/agnosticism will probably decline somewhere between 2021 and 2050 due to the low fertility rate of the secular population, the high fertility rate of religious conservatives and religious immigration into the West [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-future-of-european-darwinism-and_16.html] but it could happen sooner if there is an economic depression[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/01/when-will-european-darwinism-collapse.html]  AND "Glory and power belong to Jesus Christ forever and ever! (1 Peter 4:11).  And Conservapedia points out that Dawkian atheism is on the wane (see: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]], etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:54, 4 November 2015 (EST)
+
:By the way, your "Jesus/mustard seed/smallest seed" complaint is the result of poor biblical exegesis skills.[http://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/mustardseed.html]  Being Christian conservatives, we forgive your mustard seed size microagression against the rock solid worldview of biblical Christianity.
+
 
+
:Also, it is obvious that your long screed of atheist/[[liberal wordiness]] is a result of being threatened by the recent [[Atheism and the brain]] series and that you are engaging in psychological projection. Why is science, in this case medical science, so threatening to atheists? Your long screed in response to the atheism and the brain article series reminds me of a classic movie line: "Captain: [Our psychology] is working all right. All ahead for attack, Mr Ware. Maybe we can rip him open in the middle of a waltz."[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7IyijkgdhA] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:35, 4 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
ConstitutioSocialist insists twice "I'm a humanist".  He isn't interested in the cause of helping humanity.  He only wants to manipulatively lodge the untruth (at the end of his argumentation) that Conservapedia and its outlook is coming between humanity and needed help as deeply as possible into the heart of its members and then watch them angrily and frustratedly try to extract it.
+
 
+
For a narcissist (someone whose life revolves around securing themselves as the center of attention), watching others disentangle themselves from an untruth in this way is a win-win.  If the targets succeed, it serves as a substitute for a subservient kind of friendship: a group of persons extracting something painful that they share (the untruth he composed) with the narcissist from them much like the painful inner contradictions (emotional baggage) in the narcissist's life.
+
 
+
If they don't succeed, it helps reinforce the narcissist's sagging sense of having an understanding of human nature superior to other people, even though that particular "understanding" was learned from having on a previous occasion introduced this kind of untruth and having watched the results and then later treacherously reintroducing it with greater skill.  Some "humanism".  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 21:24, 4 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
A few remaining points:
+
 
+
:Animals fitting in the ark: [http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark How did the animals fit in the ark?]
+
 
+
:[[Starlight problem|Speed of light and the age of the universe issue]]
+
 
+
:[http://creation.com/origin-of-life The evidence points to a naturalistic origin of life being impossible]
+
 
+
*[[Evolution|Macroevolution didn't happen]] 
+
 
+
*[http://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life The universe is finely tuned for life] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:43, 5 November 2015 (EST)
+
:::Two additional matters
+
 
+
:::1. ConstitutioSocialist wrote: "I've specifically sought out nonbelievers to befriend, because I've felt the need to get away from (my own, subjective perception) 'the crazies'."
+
 
+
:::The social science data shows that: atheists are more likely to commit suicide, that theism is a boon to mental and physical health and that people are active in their faith live longer (See: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]]).
+
 
+
:::2. ConstitutioSocialist claimed there was misinformation in the main atheism article. The burden of proof is upon the claimant and ConstitutioSocialist did not point out a single factual error in Conservapedia's atheism article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:32, 5 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
::::His sense of self-importance was probably contradicted by conservativism, which would explain why he peppers his alleged pleas for civility with concealed slights.  He would claim water is dry and fire is cold just to bother you if he knew how to deliver the claim subtly enough to avoid ridicule.  Can a leopard can change his spots?  Then a habitual sinner can give up sinning (Jeremiah 13). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 15:00, 5 November 2015 (EST)
+
Given the length and tone of his voluminous screed, I do find it humorous that he gets so upset about an encyclopedia article on atheism.  It just provides further proof that atheists hate knowledge. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" - King Solomon
+
 
+
And of course, at best, Mr. Schlafly merely skimmed his lengthy screed as he is much too busy to pour over secular leftist wordiness (see: [[Liberal wordiness]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:34, 6 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
A message for the individual who calls himself "ConstitutioSocialist", which is a misnomer.  First, your questions have been answered, both in the above missives as well as in the past; we can not help it if you choose to ignore them due to your desires to have a particular individual answer them instead.  Just because you pound on someone's door doesn't mean he has to open it for you.  Second, there's the issue regarding your own honesty - or lack of it - which seems to go well with those who lack faith and morals.  You have entered Conservapedia in the past under the following sock accounts: "Humanperson", "Ebionites", "Ebionite", "Usaname", "FamilyJewels", "Stars", "Washington45", and "KettleToThePot".  Some of the edits you made include harassment of others here in addition to inserting false info.  All you did was confirm that lying is a big part of what an atheistic liberal actually is.  All all you did was to confirm that we are correct after all.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 01:53, 9 November 2015 (EST)
+
::Speaking of lying, Karajou, can you (or Mr Schlafly) truthfully tell me you've read the current [[atheism]] article start to finish in one sitting? I suspect you can't, and I'd be intrigued to read an honest report of how your heads felt afterwards were either of you ever to try. Lots of love, [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:49, 9 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:I can't argue with Karajou's checkuser research.  I left an article of an early alias of this sockpuppeteer up thinking it wasn't worth digging through the misportrayals to leave whatever fragments truth was left and which would then have to be reorganized.  He was blocked briefly then later blocked five years.  But now it turns out leaving his article up only seemed to embolden him.  Since we've established a troll-pattern (of playing mutually contradictory roles and dodging blocks) to his edits (of which some, from a later alias mentioned here by Karajou I considered too indecent to discuss) I will feel better about nominating the article I mentioned for speedy deletion.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:09, 9 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
::Someone with his m.o. posted here briefly before I blocked the account.  I would have immediately blocked him longer if I had read his message more carefully.  It seemed like an apology, but fit Constitutio's other behavior better, as his pleas for his atheist cause only seemed like a pretext for the exercise of further single-minded propagandistic methods of which he provided more pieces in the message itself.  I will block two years but won't be hurt if anyone feels the urge to change it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:29, 9 November 2015 (EST)
+
:::He's like the Wizard in Oz: making a big show based on a lie by a loudmouth who can't afford to have that curtain opened.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 03:39, 9 November 2015 (EST)
+
::::Yeah.  User:Conservative gave him the opportunity to write an essay on atheism here at Conservapedia, but Constitutio turned it down for that "big show".  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:48, 9 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
== Message left to me by User:MRinder ==
+
 
+
Message left to me by [[User:MRinder]]
+
 
+
Hi, you might want to look at the topic of Scientology and Abortions. They commonly force the members in the Sea Org to have abortions, if they are pregnant, often against their will.
+
:MY RESPONSE: I have a lot of matters going on in my life right now. So I don't plan on editing that article anymore. Given the litigiousness of Scientologists, I am guessing it would require some careful research and I can't do that right now. Feel free to contact the owner of the website about this matter at: [[User talk:Aschlafly]].
+
 
+
:The good news is that Scientology seems to be declining and the internet is probably a big part of that. So I would encourage you to contact the owner of the website. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:49, 6 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
== The advanced character features like bolding, italics, line spaces, etc is currently not working  ==
+
 
+
I am not sure if it is just me, but the advanced character features like bolding, italics, line spaces, etc is currently not working. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:49, 9 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
::It <i>works</i> <b>for</b> <s>me</s>.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:58, 9 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:::'''Works''' ''for'' me also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:08, 9 November 2015 (EST)
+
::::It works now for me also. Maybe I was in a rush before and I was mistaken or maybe it was just a temporary glitch. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 02:55, 10 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
=="Subject/headline" acting up==
+
 
+
When typing in the "Subject/headline" and hitting "Publish" (when entering "Add Topic"), it goes blank when the captcha comes up, and when you re-enter the subject/headline, it is submitting without the topic headline. Just figured I'd point it out. [[User:JSalinas|JSalinas]] ([[User talk:JSalinas|talk]]) 01:14, 11 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:Thanks for mentioning it.  Your account shouldn't have this problem any more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 07:53, 11 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
== Conservative Bible Project ==
+
 
+
Andy, perhaps you should refrain from editing the CBP '''until you have learned the most basic Greek'''? The declination of adjectives? The conjugation of verbs? [[Talk:Epistle_to_the_Hebrews_(Translated)#Hebrews_10:12]] is a brutal reminder of the depth of your ignorance! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 20:48, 15 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
== For your information ==
+
 
+
Have a look at [[Talk:Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#A challenge for Andrew_Schlafly]]:
+
 
+
{{cquote|Above, I have given an examples (Acts 7:36), where the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος is used as the subject of a sentence and refers to a person mentioned before, thus it is translated as "this one/man". There are many more of such examples, e.g., Matthew 26:23, Matthew 27:58, Luke 2:34, Luke 15:2, Luke 23:41, John 3:2, Acts 4:9, etc. Do you have another example (Biblical or from general Greek literature) where οὗτος refers to the author of the text without him being previously introduced|||[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 16:05, 18 November 2015 (EST)}}
+
 
+
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 16:07, 18 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:Andy is convinced Jesus wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. At the same time, he refuses to acknowledge that this would turn Christianity on its head by relegating the Gospels to second-tier texts.
+
 
+
:In other words, he possesses superhuman powers of [[doublethink]] and [[crimestop]] when it comes to "arguing" for his "insights". Go punch a brick wall forever instead. Eventually the wall might crack... [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 19:53, 18 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
::You have no evidence of that.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 22:47, 18 November 2015 (EST)
+
:::[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Epistle_to_the_Hebrews#Just_a_thought Au contraire.] [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 15:24, 19 November 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
== Can't reset password ==
+
 
+
I had to create a new account. I have an account that I have not used in a long time ([[User:Ymmotrojam]]), but I was unable to reset the password to it because email features are disabled on this wiki. I'm not sure if you were aware of this or not. That may be preventing some people from contributing who otherwise would. I used to be a server admin for some other Christian-based wikis. If you are needing assistance with the MediaWiki software, just let me know. Blessings, --[[User:Tnmajor|Tnmajor]] ([[User talk:Tnmajor|talk]]) 11:13, 3 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:Welcome back, and thanks for letting me know about that issue!  I've just fixed it.  Please try it now.  Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:28, 3 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
::It worked. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] ([[User talk:Ymmotrojam|talk]]) 14:29, 3 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
== Plans for growth? ==
+
 
+
I am curious what your plans for growth of this project are? I get the general impression that the project as a whole is stagnating. Would you be open to allowing editing back to the public again? There are ways to keep spam away while still allowing the general public to make edits of articles. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] ([[User talk:Ymmotrojam|talk]]) 16:14, 3 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:Conservapedia remains open to the public, as illustrated by your ability to create a new account and edit from it.  Conservapedia continues to grow and reach more people.  But new suggestions are always welcome too!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:28, 3 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
::I think one of the things that concerns me about this is a basic lack of professionalism in many of the articles (not pointing fingers to anyone). I am definitely against political correctness and such, but if we are going to claim to be as good as one of those traditional hard-back encyclopedias, we have a long way to go. I hate making criticisms like this, because we can all work to improve it. I'm just concerned that it doesn't seem to have changed much since 2007. I think this will scare many conservatives away from this site, even give conservatives a bad name. There also seems to be an overemphasis on the United States of America. I think in order to grow, we need to shed some of this unnecessary baggage that is holding the site back. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] ([[User talk:Ymmotrojam|talk]]) 16:51, 3 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:::We address topics that traditional hard-back encyclopedias fail to include, which may be why traditional encyclopedias are failing.  For example, we criticize the [[NFL]], which is an addiction for millions of Americans and is being exported to the rest of the world.  As to our American focus, the U.S. has been and continues to be the fountainhead of conservatism so it's not surprising this would be the starting point.  This is what the U.S. should be exporting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:00, 3 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
::::Addressing topics that a traditional encyclopedia does not is one of the benefits of the Internet. But I was referring to the professionalism of how articles are being written, not the scope or types of articles written. When I say it has an overemphasis on the USA, I don't mean we should downplay the importance of the USA. But if you were to pick up the Encyclopedia Britannica, would you see a logo on the front with the United States flag? The fact that the US flag is not there does not mean the US is unimportant, it just is not the central focus when considering the entire encyclopedia as a whole. If conservative concepts are good (which I think generally they are), they are universally good, without regard to any particular nation. See this: [http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/book-reviews-american-exceptionalism-and-civil-religion] --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] ([[User talk:Ymmotrojam|talk]]) 17:13, 3 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
== Three Co-equal Branches of Government ==
+
 
+
So I had this crazy idea that I thought I would throw your way. What if a wiki had three co-equal branches of government just like the United States government? Perhaps one of the reasons Wikipedia is so crazy is because it's every man for himself. But what if there was elected representatives at Wikipedia? I know it sounds kind of weird, but it might be a good idea. We won't be able to convince Wikipedia to do that, but we could do that here... we could setup a Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branch. There could be a "constitution", elections, all the works. The legislature would create the policies for the wiki, the judiciary would interpret the policies, and the executive branch would take the lead. What do you think? :) If there were any disagreements, there would be an appeals process that would go through the judiciary. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] ([[User talk:Ymmotrojam|talk]]) 22:03, 4 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:Your idea is clever but the elegance and strength of conservative thought is that it quickly becomes clear what the best position is.  Some people will continue to disagree with it, but often that is due to a personal emotion rather than reasoned analysis, as in the case of [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:39, 4 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
::It's just a suggestion, so take it or leave. But I don't think the founders would have made that argument. They knew that the heart of man would always tend towards corruption. That's why we have our checks and balances. And I'm sure the founders were probably very conservative people. But they didn't just assume their conservative ideas would survive because they were such good ideas. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] ([[User talk:Ymmotrojam|talk]]) 23:08, 4 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:::Your idea is insightful, and I'm not rejecting it.  But math class is not run by checks-and-balances, and neither is church.  Government, which does benefit from checks and balances, is not particularly intellectual or reason-based.  So I think analogizing one to the other does have defects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:35, 4 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
::::Every wiki has government (admins, sysops, etc), and laws (policies, commandments, etc), I'm just suggesting that there could be a little more organization and a democratic process to it all that reflected the will of the people. It doesn't mean that every minute thing in a math lesson would get voted on. But the overarching policies and procedures of the site would be dictated by a leadership structure with inherent checks and balances. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] ([[User talk:Ymmotrojam|talk]]) 00:17, 5 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:::::It's more suitable that an enterprise run for conservatives and professing a conservative point of view be run by conservatives, not by the public at large. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 12:12, 5 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
::::::And that's understandable to a degree. One of my thoughts though was that it may actually encourage growth, because people would feel like they can truly make a difference when they get to be part of a "political" process. And you could always make it difficult to change such a "constitution" by requiring 2/3 vote of those who had been voted "into office". :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] ([[User talk:Ymmotrojam|talk]]) 21:36, 5 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
== article you will be interested in ==
+
 
+
Here is an article you will be interested in:
+
*[http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html Holy Logic: Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists] by David Knight, ''Der Spiegel International''
+
 
+
Enjoy! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:23, 7 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:Interesting.  Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:57, 7 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
== Homeopathy article ==
+
 
+
I have substantially expanded the article on [[homeopathy]]. What do you think about it? How should I change it in order to make it conform to Conservapedia's goals? Should I make it more concise, or am I supposed to expand it more?--[[User:Leugen|Leugen]] ([[User talk:Leugen|talk]]) 14:55, 24 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
:Your edits to the entry look good to me.  I don't think they need to be more concise or verbose.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:57, 24 December 2015 (EST)
+
 
+
== Happy New Year's Day! ==
+
 
+
Happy New Years Day, Mr. Schlafly. May Conservapedia continue to grow, even surpassing Wikipedia! Have a happy New year! [[User:U.U|U.U]] ([[User talk:U.U|talk]]) 00:04, 1 January 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:Happy New Year's to you also!  With [[God]]'s grace, may 2016 be even better than 2015 was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:12, 1 January 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
==Vandal==
+
There is a certain vandal, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Addict]. He has not made a single constructive edit. I suggest that we block him as he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. [[User:U.U|U.U]] ([[User talk:U.U|talk]]) 21:02, 4 January 2016 (EST)
+
:I blocked him.[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/PeterKa] Thanks for the tip. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:34, 4 January 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
== Vandal ==
+
 
+
Can you please block the vandal pronto. I can't keep reverting his edits indefinitely
+
 
+
== For your consideration ==
+
 
+
Both of these images should be ok for encyclopedic purposes.  Won't add to the [[Andrew Breitbart]] page until admin review.
+
 
+
File:Andrew Breitbart With His Family.png
+
 
+
File:Legacy Of Breitbart - Breitbart Is Here.jpg [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 23:31, 17 January 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:The source and rights to those images should be added to the upload files, which presumably you obtained somewhere on the internet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 01:14, 18 January 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
::Yes, I want to complete the Breitbart page and these are good additions.  The ''Breitbart is Here'' image should be good to go, but the image of him with his family I cannot find anything additional on.  It was probably uploaded to a twitter feed by a personal friend which makes it exceedingly difficult to track down to the source.  I added the link to the site where I found it. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 00:03, 19 January 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
This should be fair use(it was tagged as public domain by Breitbart), but I wanted to bring it to your attention. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 22:43, 2 April 2016 (EDT)
+
 
+
File:The LoveSong of Saul Alinsky.png
+
 
+
:It's fine.  Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:41, 3 April 2016 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Cert denied in ''Sissel'' ==
+
 
+
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in ''Sissel''.  I'm not sure that this development bodes well for ''Hotze'', but I was interested in your thoughts.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 14:40, 19 January 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:I just heard the news about the denial of cert in ''Sissel''.  You're quick to notice it so soon.  I need to look again at how the ''Sissel'' petitioner framed his questions presented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:47, 19 January 2016 (EST)
+
::[http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sissel-v-dept-of-health-human-services/ Here's] the link to the petition and other case documents on SCOTUSblog, which is where I was following the case (it is an immensely useful resource).  [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 14:52, 19 January 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
== News pick: "Nearly 10 percent of college grads think Judge Judy is on Supreme Court" ==
+
 
+
[http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/266335-nearly-10-percent-of-college-grads-think-judge-judy-is-on "Nearly 10 percent of college grads think Judge Judy is on Supreme Court" from ''The Hill''].  The survey results linked to in the article are quite disappointing.  Perhaps there's some way to publicize Conservapedia's American government courses more widely.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 16:58, 19 January 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:That is dismal news!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:03, 19 January 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
== Please give User:Aburke SkipCaptcha rights and delete pages rights ==
+
 
+
Please give [[User:Aburke]] SkipCaptcha rights and delete pages rights so the wiki administrative work that the account will be doing will proceed more efficiently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:21, 3 February 2016 (EST)
+
== Copyright policy ==
+
Someone has uploaded an image today that is copyrighted.  I left the following notice on the talk page of the image [[File talk:Liberalism-Find-A-Cure-300x230-1.png‎]], "This uploaded image is an exact copy of: http://www.supportourribbons.com/custom-ribbon-magnet-sticker/7162/LIBERALISM+-+Find+A+Cure which has the following copyright notice: "Copyright 2016 Visor Enterprises, LLC" Does this upload comply with Conservapedia policy?"  Are there any more steps needed? Thank you for your help. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 13:33, 7 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:The image has been deleted.  Thanks for letting me know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:25, 7 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
 
+
==Google Profile==
+
Perhaps you are aware, and/or perhaps you do not care, but I came across [https://profiles.google.com/schlafly.andrew/about this] today.  Clearly it is not your account, or it was yours but has been "hacked."  Perhaps if you contact Google you could get this removed? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:03, 9 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:You're right, I don't care, but thanks for letting me know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:29, 9 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
::Alright, you didn't really seem like the type who would, but I thought I'd just go ahead and point it out.  Have a great day! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 18:39, 9 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
== Gravitational wave vandalism ==
+
 
+
As you may know, there's been a kerfuffle over those 2 pages, and I've been discussing it with Cons; see my talk page.  Please be patient and let me deal with this.  I will set it to what I know you want it to be, that is, free of what you consider claptrap.  (I will then write an essay that is free of what I consider claptrap.  :-)  But I can't get to it right away.  But, could you use your administrative powers to rename "gravity waves" to "gravitational waves"?  That will preserve the edit history for the page that it is supposed to be on.  The comment about the difference between the two is well taken, and we should have that, and have the pages named properly.  Just blast "gravity waves" on top of "gravitational waves".  I will repair the damage, probably tomorrow.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:34, 14 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
That is, today.  :-(  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:36, 14 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
OK, I misunderstood the protocol.  You can't just "blast" one page on top of another, the way you can copy files.  So, please delete the [[Gravitational waves]] page (I have saved the data), and then rename [[Gravity waves]] to Gravitational waves.  I will then recreate Gravity waves with the saved data, putting in a notice along the lines of "You probably want to look at the other page; the words mean different things; and see website XYZ for an explanation of the issue."  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 17:58, 14 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:Is this semantics worth bothering with?  Presumably many people use the terms interchangeably.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:02, 14 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:Deleted one and moved the other entry as requested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:11, 14 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
::Yes, people often misuse the terms.  And I've generally thought of Conservapedia as a place where we are sticklers for doing things correctly.  Readers can learn about the common misuse of the terms here at Conservapedia, just as they can have many other common misunderstandings corrected.  In any case, by making the requested move, you have answered your question in the affirmative.  We have to move forward with the notice about the issue, as I described above.
+
 
+
::Now I am tempted to decline to make this change, or make any other contributions, since you have threatened to delete/censor my work on Arthur Eddington.  But I promised to do the gravitation wave work, and I will keep that promise.
+
 
+
::But you have also repeatedly censored/reverted many other contributions in the relativity area, such as changing headings for sections about experiments that establish the validity of relativity in general, or E=mc^2 in particular, to have titles like "Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity".  Or making a change that claims that Uranium fission does not occur.  Readers can easily see the foolishness of these articles as written in the form that you insist on.
+
 
+
::If you look at the "essays" category, you will see hundreds of incredibly silly things, that you have not seen fit to delete.  Also, I made the [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] page an essay, in the hopes that it would be thus protected against deletion, which hope has thus far been met.  I have been planning a few more of these "rival article" essays, including one on E=mc^2, containing massive, incontrovertible, unambiguous experimental evidence of its correctness, to get past your insistence that the Cockcroft-Walton experiment either did not occur, did not get the results that it got, or would not get those results if conducted again.  Or your insistence that analysis of alpha particle energies is simply a coincidence, like a stopped clock being correct twice a day.  The essay was going to contain hundreds of "stopped clock" alpha analyses, showing that the clock actually keeps very reliable time, all day.
+
 
+
::Compared to the E=mc^2 issue, the issue with Arthur Eddington was actually quite minor.  The sticking points were the notion that he had Nobel ambitions (you don't know that), that he used the eclipse expedition to get Conscientious Objector status in World War I (the eclipse expedition was in 1919, WWI ended in 1918, the chronology is actually complex, there were some real issues there, but he didn't get out of WWI service over the eclipse expedition) or your extremely disdainful comments about the 1/136 and 1/137 business (your article makes Eddington out to be a complete loser, he was a popularizer, he was extremely good at it, but was was wrong about 137).  I assume that your extreme disdain for the man was that he used his skill and renown as a writer to promote relativity.  You went way overboard in this.  I was trying to write an essay that explains in a reasonably even-handed way who he was and what he did.  My essay also explained what the "who is the third?" anecdote was about.  You appeared not to know about this, since, in one of your courses (not going to bother looking it up, but I assume you remember it) you repeated the anecdote without any explanation at all of what it was about.  It occurred because he was a famous lecturer.
+
 
+
::I think we could have reached an accommodation on Eddington.  We could probably reach an accommodation on another of my essays: [[Essay:Law of mass conservation]].  The point there was your repeating the elementary-school level "old wives tale" that conservation only applies to chemical and "ordinary" mechanical phenomena, but somehow doesn't apply to nuclear phenomena, as though nuclear phenomena are in a completely different realm of reality.  And your claims that people who don't embrace the "rules don't apply to nuclear phenomena" position are somehow liberals.
+
 
+
::We could probably work out the disputes over Eddington and mass conservation, such that I would not need "rival" articles.  The bigger ones: relativity and E=mc^2, I'm less optimistic about.  My E=mc^2 "essay" was going to have a table of about a hundred or so alpha decay energies.  I seriously doubted that you would permit me to edit that into the main E=mc^2 article, when that article refers to the Cockcroft-Walton experiment as an "Alleged Experimental verification"
+
 
+
::So I await your decision on deleting my Eddington "essay".  I have already saved that material, of course, but there is no other place where I need to post it.  I know of no other place on the internet that treats Eddington as a pariah, or that has any need of a more even-handed treatment.
+
 
+
::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:05, 14 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:::Just so you know, I wrote the above before seeing your note about "a tribute to Arthur Eddington".  As you can well imagine, my reply took a long time to write.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:10, 14 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
::::Is that title fine with you?  If so, then I will do the move for the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:14, 14 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:::::Could you hold off a bit while we both think about this?  I'm OK with giving it another name that isn't just the original name with "essay:" stuck in front; that is indeed kind of dumb.  But "tribute" makes it sound as though I am heaping praise on him, the way I think you were heaping scorn on him.  I don't think I was.  My "rebuttal to counterexamples" page (I'm getting tired of cutting-and-pasting, and putting things in double brackets; I'm sure you know what I'm referring to) has the word "rebuttal" in it, and it is ''obviously'' not just a rewrite with slightly different editorial content.  Same for my "rebuttal to logical problems with E=mc^2", or whatever it was.  Naming those essays "tributes", or naming an essay "rebuttal to Arthur Eddington", would just be dumb.  How about this (but don't go off and move pages; we both need to think about it): my pages that go against the mainstream thought at CP could be named either "rebuttal to X" or "X: an alternative view".  Or something like that.  I think the things I am writing (or plan to write) would come in one of those two categories.  The "alternative view" articles would be mostly similar to the original article, with my different take on things, in those cases where you and I can't reach a synthesis.  By the way, my "essay" on conservation of mass is something that I think we ''can'' reach an accommodation on, and not need a separate essay.  Look it over when you have the time.
+
 
+
:::::Now I'm going to do the gravity wave stuff, and not keep looking at Recent Changes the way I all-too-commonly do :-(
+
 
+
:::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:30, 14 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
::::::That's fine to think about the name.  I think you are praising someone who manipulated data for his own benefit and beliefs.  If someone did that as a PhD student today, he would probably be kicked out of the program.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:47, 14 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
Let's go for [[Essay:Arthur Eddington|Arthur Eddington - A Tribute]] and [[Arthur Eddington|Arthur Eddington - A Vilification]]... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 02:19, 15 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:Your first suggestion is fine, but the second is not.  And why didn't you address my observation about how Arthur Eddington's conduct would probably get him kicked out of a PhD program today?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 09:43, 15 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
::*''"Your first suggestion is fine, but the second is not."'' As English isn't my first language, I often have trouble to decide whether such a statement is meant to be ironic, or just displays an astounding lack of self-awareness. SamHB has explained above the distortions in your article - which justify the term "vilification" IMO.
+
::*''"And why didn't you address my observation about how Arthur Eddington's conduct would probably get him kicked out of a PhD program today?"'' Sorry, I will do so. You said:
+
::*''"If someone did that as a PhD student today, he would probably be kicked out of the program."'' Yes, he would - and not only because his methods are absolutely out of date. I'm glad that the standards have improved over the last 100 years. Therefore, it is important that observations like his (or Mendel's) are replicated all the time, with more and more modern equipment. Lucky for Eddington that our best observations today proved true the results he  wished to find.
+
::*''"I think you are praising someone who manipulated data for his own benefit and beliefs."'' Pots and kettles? I suppose you don't want to be judged by history only as someone who used his ignorance of Greek to mistranslate the Bible according to his beliefs and insights? As shown [[Talk:Epistle_to_the_Hebrews_%28Translated%29#Hebrews_10:12|here]] or [[Talk:Essay:Calming_the_Storm#Probably_one_of_the_dumbests_things_in_the_CBP|here]]?
+
::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 08:27, 16 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:The reason I didn't reply between your edit of 23:47, 14 February and your followup edit about same at 09:43, 15 February is that I was sleeping.  :-)  Also, CP goes into "night mode", so I couldn't have replied even if I had stayed up all night.  I also have other commitments that keep me busy.  Please be patient.  I promise that I will not leave this issue hanging for an undue amount of time.
+
 
+
:It sounds as though the sticking points are the "rival" articles, as opposed to the "rebuttal" articles.  There are two in the latter category; one is my rival article on mass conservation.  That was a case of me overreacting to your characterization of my edit to the Eddington article as "claptrap".  Sorry, but that sort of thing makes me very angry.  (I'm a recognized expert, and a good writer, on technical topics, and those of my colleagues that know that I edit CP think that it is ridiculous that I do so.)  So I overreacted.  Sorry.
+
 
+
:I think I can edit the main article on mass conservation in a way that will be acceptable to you.  It will have no reference to relativity or E=YouKnowWhat.  The problem was that it was repeating the old canard about "conservation of mass only applies to chemical or mechanical interactions, not to nuclear ones".  I heard that in junior high school (and I suspect lots of other people do too), but by high school I knew what was really going on.  The worldview that nuclear reactions are some kind of radically different phenomenon, outside the bounds of normal physics, is just bullsomething.  Teaching that gives impressionable junior high pupils the idea that there are no fundamental physical laws that can be depended on.  (As you would put it, no absolutes.  Or to use your favorite metaphor, sometimes physics comes up with 2+2=5.)
+
 
+
:After I make the change to the main mass conservation article, if you find it satisfactory (I'm confident that you will) you may delete my "rival essay".
+
 
+
:Then I will get back to you on the subject of Mr. Eddington.  My remarks on that subject aren't finished.  Please be patient.  I have other commitments in my life.  (And Cons wants me to take time off and go touring the countryside.)  Yes, people can, and do, get kicked out of PhD programs, and get fired from laboratories, over violations of scientific integrity.
+
 
+
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:43, 16 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
::I have put up a new version of [[Law of the conservation of mass]].  It is, In My Humble Opinion, one of the most clear and concise explanations of this difficult topic that you will find on the internet.  It isn't easy explaining why all phenomena obey the same fundamental rules, and yet people are tempted to say that nuclear processes do not obey one of those rules.  It has no mention of "cl*ptr*p".  Please look at it.  If you find it acceptable, feel free to delete my "rival" article, which is at [[Essay:Law of mass conservation]].
+
 
+
::Then we can discuss my other "rival" article, Arthur Eddington.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:52, 17 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
===Best Known for Watering his Pea-Patch===
+
 
+
I had hoped to take another day or so to get my thoughts in order on this subject, but it seems that events, both on the Eddington page and on its talk page, have overtaken me.  So here goes.
+
 
+
The existing [[Arthur Eddington]] page, in the present form that you are insisting on, is obscenely negative.  It goes far beyond any standards of good taste.  It is obvious that you are taking out your disdain for relativity on this person, a person who made some mistakes.
+
 
+
*For the lede sentence to say that he was "best known for venturing out on a boat off Africa" is blatantly vicious.  It is more negative than anything I've read about Kanye West!  It would be equivalent to describing Gregor Mendel as being "best known for watering his pea-patch".
+
 
+
Both men conducted, and publicly reported, scientific research that history has since shown was subject to "confirmation bias".  (Though in each case the results, if not the methods, happen to have been vindicated.)  The contemporary scientific world has extremely strict standards for analyzing data, with the "5 sigma" rule, and extensive peer review within the scientific community.  This can be seen in recent news about:
+
:*The Higgs Boson&mdash;the measurements were made by two teams that conducted completely different experiments and did not communicate with each other, and the announcement was made only after they compared their results and saw that they had each gotten a 5-sigma result of 126 GeV.
+
:*The "BICEP2" experiment for primordial gravitational waves.  This was announced as preliminary data, subject to peer review.  It did not pass the peer review.  No deception was involved.
+
:*The recent announcement of observation of gravitational waves.  In addition to having the "5 sigma" test applied, the data were analyzed for 5 months, with particular attention to whether a "prank" injection of data could have occurred.  Checking for prank data is standard procedure in the scientific community, notably in the SETI project.
+
If someone were to announce results similar to Mendel's or Eddington's in the current era, they would be dismissed immediately as inadequate.  They would simply get nowhere in the scientific review and verification process.  If someone were to use subterfuge or deceit to get around that, they would be kicked out of graduate school, or their laboratory employment, as the case may be.  People occasionally do engage in subterfuge to get around the review process, most commonly in the medical field, and they do get kicked out of their school or laboratory.
+
 
+
But those standards were not in place in Mendel's time or Eddington's time.  They got away with their "cherry picking" of data because there were no controls of the sort that we have in the present era.  I recommend ''Einstein's Luck'', by John Waller, which analyzes many cases of this, including Mendel and Eddington.  (The book gets its title from the Eddington case.)
+
 
+
Both men presumably exercised "confirmation bias", a well-known phenomenon in the present era, in making their analyses.  Did Eddington cherry-pick which photographic plates to use because he had a personal stake in vindicating General Relativity?  Undoubtedly.  Did you cherry-pick which scientist to single out for your extremely negative article because you have a personal stake in showing that relativity is wrong?  I'm sure you did.
+
 
+
*You say that Eddington was a liberal.  You are well known for using that word as a pejorative term for anyone you don't like.  But the issues of modern American liberalism are very different from the issues of Edwardian era British society.  Conservapedia's article on liberalism lists such things as "big government", national health care ("Obamacare"), deprecating the role of Christianity in society (such as banning public nativity displays), gay marriage, gun control, and so on.  None of these were known issues in England at the time.  England has no 2nd amendment.  The notion of "big government" vs. "small government" was mostly brought to the fore by Ronald Reagan around 1980.  Gay marriage was unheard of.  There is no evidence that Eddington advocated a national health care system (such as England has today), or gay marriage, or any of these other things.  Looking at British society at the time, Eddington would have to be considered a conservative.
+
 
+
*Eddington "probably dreamed of winning a Nobel Prize", and "the Nobel committee was not impressed and declined to give him an award."  How do you know what he was hoping for?  How do you know what the Nobel committee's deliberations were?  Why do you think they would have given a prize to Eddington, who merely publicized and popularized the theory, rather than Einstein himself?
+
 
+
*Eddington supposedly arrogantly retorted, "Who's the third?"  Your writing in the Eddington article, and in [[World History Lecture Eleven]], shows that you seem to know nothing about the context of this quip.  In the Eddington article you refer to it as "arrogant", whereas in the World History lecture you refer to it as "comical".  The latter is closer to the truth, but apparently that didn't denigrate Eddington enough.  My [[Essay:Arthur Eddington]] tells the story.  (It's from the Waller book.)  If someone were to say something like "The theory of General Relativity is so abstruse and complex that Einstein and I are the only two people in the world who understand it, and if anyone else suggests that there is a third, I wouldn't have any idea wht they are talking about.  It is preposterous that a third person could understand it."  '''that''' would be arrogant.  He was simply momentarily confused by Silberstein's remark.  These things happen in live question-and-answer sessions all the time.  And yet you describe Eddington as being arrogant.  Why?
+
 
+
*Your comments about Chandrasekhar and about the fine structure constant also show a relentless policy of casting Eddington in the worst possible light, with statements like "did not fare well", "was proven wrong", and "lost all credibility".  Also, you say that the 1/136 proposal was "to make the math easier".  What math?  The fine structure constant is used in various complex formulas involving spectroscopy and fundamental physics.  Those formulas are full of "floating point" (non-integral) quantities, such as the charge on the electron and Planck's constant.  No math is made easier if one of the quantities appearing in the formulas happens to be an integer.  I believe that Eddington's proposal arose from some sort of notions of elegance or mysticism.  Those notions were shared by many other people.  To find that a dimensionless physical constant is an integer would indeed be remarkable.
+
 
+
Your Eddington article (that is, the form of the article that you seem to be insisting on) vilifies and denigrates a well-known (but not without faults and mistakes) scientist to an astounding degree.  This clearly arises from your disdain for relativity and all things and people associated with it.  The bias is really quite transparent, and casts Conservapedia in a very untrustworthy light.
+
 
+
If you insist on this blatantly unflattering and disdainful tone of the article, I will have to make a page along the lines of "Essay:A Defense of Arthur Eddington".  It will not be a "rival" article.  While giving a more even-handed treatment of the facts, it will also specifically reply to the objections that I have raised above.
+
 
+
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:20, 18 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
== Happy President's Day ==
+
 
+
Hi Mr.Schlafly. It's President's Day today! Both Washington and Lincoln, two patriotic presidents of The United States, were born this month. Happy President's Day, Mr.Schlafly. [[User:U.U|U.U]] ([[User talk:U.U|talk]]) 14:29, 15 February 2016 (EST)
+
==Antisemitism==
+
Christians want to share their beliefs.  Yet, the Bible teaches us to love thy neighbor and to respect people who do not share our beliefs. Historically, this contradiction has not been handled well, and Jews have experienced persecution for their religion and ethnic status.
+
 
+
Modern conservatism addresses this through a strong defense of Israel and through a careful approach in framing issues.  For example, we discuss the Judeo-Christian tradition in contrast with Islamic traditions.  I have been reading through this wiki over the past few weeks and watching the recent changes.  I am a bit confused as to your stance on antisemitism at Conservapedia.  For example, I noticed that one editor tagged a biography as [[:Category:Jewish People]] and [[:Category:American Jews]], and you removed those tags.  I then noticed two essays with provocative titles:
+
*[[Essay:Jews and Gun Control - Fear of Freedom or Freedom from Fear]]
+
*[[Essay:Why Jews Hate Guns - Are they right]]
+
I was interested to see what direction they took, but the essays seem to have been deleted.  Leaving bold face links to those essays on a large number of other pages creates implications which you may not intend.  Before I get more involved in this wiki, could you please confirm that it follows the modern conservative approach of respect for Jews? Thank you. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:32, 19 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:There is no antisemitism here, or in the [[conservative movement]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 10:39, 19 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
::You're right.  Those essays, if they existed, would be inappropriate, and even the (red) links to them can "create implications which you may not intend".  I have started deleting those links.  But there's a lot of work to do, and I don't have any more time to work on it right no.  I'll be back.  Yes, antisemitism is totally against Christian teaching.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:27, 19 February 2016 (EST)
+
:::Thank you. I will help also. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:51, 19 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
::::I have removed links to these pages from all remaining main pages.  I did not do so on the essay or user pages.--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 12:24, 19 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:::::Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:16, 19 February 2016 (EST)
+
::::::I would delete links to them from the essays, but if that is not allowed, I have redirected both of them to this discussion. Thanks. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:00, 20 February 2016 (EST)
+
:::::::There should not be a problem deleting links within essays, unless the essay is protected.  Can you give an example of any such problem?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 09:03, 20 February 2016 (EST)
+
::::::::I thought that it was against the rules to edit essays.  I will fix it now. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 14:10, 20 February 2016 (EST)
+
:::::::::It is fine to remove an empty link from an essay. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:20, 20 February 2016 (EST)
+
::[[Goldman_Sachs]] includes a "Quotes" section about Jews, unrelated to Goldman Sachs.  Most are about the Rothschilds.  One is from 1836.  Another is from an anti-Semitic tract by Henry Ford.  Perhaps someone can edit this appropriately. [[User:MelH|MelH]] ([[User talk:MelH|talk]]) 12:10, 20 February 2016 (EST)
+
:::I took the quotes out because (1) this was all a long copy-paste from the Rothschild family article and (2) having so many quotes without prose that explains their context is misleading.  The quotes were undated and poorly sourced and no connection was stated between the Rothschild family and Goldman Sachs. By the way, Mr. Schlafly should look at the [[Rothschild family]] article.  The article reminds me of the student who makes some research notes and then instead of sitting down and writing a coherent article, just types up the research notes without any logical order or complete sentences.  Those sentences that are complete are lifted from the Wikipedia article.  Many thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:46, 20 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
::::I wondered if it was okay to remove them from essays--good to know!  Someone cleaned up all but the links from here and TAR's page. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 15:41, 20 February 2016 (EST)
+
:::::But the [[Rothschild family]] article remains painfully bad.  Compare it to the [[John D. Rockefeller]] article.  Both cover accumulation of wealth, but one sticks to the facts and the other comes off as Jew-bashing. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 17:13, 20 February 2016 (EST)
+
We need to give more thought to how we handle religious affiliation in biographies.  For example, today I noticed that one US Senator who is running for President, does not have his religion in his article at all, while another US Senator who is not running for President had his religion added to the lead paragraph.  I can understand his adding "liberal" and "Democrat" to the sentence, by why also add "Jewish" at the same time?  Neither of the Senators are particularly known for actively practicing and advocating their religions.  I know that several Congressional directories include religion as one of their data items.  I suggest that we either include it as a data element in the infobox for all members of Congress, or put it into the personal life section, or just leave it out unless it become relevant to the elected official's official actions. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:53, 29 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
==Consistent page format==
+
I am responding to your edits following my edits at [[Solyndra]].  I am doing my best to follow the consistent page format established at: [[Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Layout]].  It calls for References to come before the See also section.  I have always suspected that this design was chosen because it would enable CP editors to spot pages copied over from Wikipedia which uses the opposite order.  I will do it whatever way you specify, but need guidance so that all of the pages will be consistent.  Many thanks. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 16:38, 24 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:Consistency is not as important a content.  Personally, I prefer putting footnotes at the bottom.  But there is no need to embark on a massive change in format for pages that have the order reversed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:43, 24 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
==Vandal==
+
A vandal on the loose. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Benkumar] I have told DavidB4 and Jpatt.[[User:U.U|U.U]] ([[User talk:U.U|talk]]) 02:34, 27 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
::He, Rahulbrown, and Josephkocher might also be one and the same person. [[User:U.U|U.U]] ([[User talk:U.U|talk]]) 02:41, 27 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
== Should Beauty and the Beast really be on the Greatest Conservative Films essay? ==
+
  
 
Hi.
 
Hi.
  
I probably addressed this topic... twice now on the talk page for the essay Greatest Conservative Films, maybe three times, yet no one responded one way or another, so I thought I'd address it to you directly, since you indicated that it was conservative, at least compared to The Princess and the Frog.
+
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)
  
Anyways, I was starting to wonder whether Disney's Beauty and the Beast truly deserved to be under the essay Greatest Conservative Films, even under the Debatable Whether Conservative tag. I initially moved it to the latter from the definitely conservative section largely because there have been a lot of stuff in the film that was closer to being liberal than to truly being conservative. However, after giving it more thought, I'm not sure there was actually much to indicate it could even be debatably be labeled as a conservative film, let alone solidly conservative, sort of like how Star Trek was removed from the Greatest Conservative TV Shows essay altogether after initially being moved to the Debatable Whether Conservative.
+
==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)
  
For starters, while the film is less feminist compared to later Disney films such as The Princess and the Frog, make no mistake, it was definitely feminist in its plot line. I know that Jeffrey Katzenberg specifically requested when he demanded for I think the third rewrite that they do a feminist twist to the fairy tale. And Linda Woolverton made her views quite clear by explicitly stating she based Belle on the "Women's Movement", and she also indicated that she had a scene of Belle baking cut simply because "a liberated woman [like Belle] wouldn't know how to bake." And had also gone so far as to denigrate Belle's predecessors as being "weak", "insipid", "only desired love and marriage", and "only waited for their prince to come." And that was just under the production notes. In the actual film, the feminist agenda was made more than a little apparent where the opening song AND Gaston basically inferred Belle was an oddball in the town merely because of her literacy and love of books, which strongly implied that they were gunning for the feminist falsehood that women were not allowed to get an education or even be literate at all until the 1960s, and that before then, only "rich white males" could get any education and literacy at all (Having had to have that view be beaten into my head since College in Spring 2011, I'd recognize it when I see it). This is of course despite the fact that there have been plenty of women at the time who were literate and educated, like Marie Antoinette, or especially the original authors of the fairy tale, Beaumont and Villeuvneue. Plus, they also strongly implied that marriage and raising a child was a woman's worst nightmare, and we're expected to root for Belle to kick Gaston out of the house into a mudpool simply for proposing to her and essentially ruining the wedding near the beginning, with her specifically showing disgust towards the idea of having kids. Most feminists, especially by the second wave, had expressed disgust towards having children. In fact, it was also the first film to not only not show the main protagonists marrying each other, but also not even hint at their being married either, something even most Disney Princess films prior to that film at least tried to pull off. It's bad enough that the only three women, or at least the only three women with some consistent screentime that actually were receptive to the idea of marriage, those blonde triplets who crushed over Gaston, were actually depicted in an obscene manner, being depicted as if they were dumb blondes and even being referred to as "the bimbettes" in the script and credits, which is extremely derogatory and is essentially derived from "bimbo", despite the fact that they demonstrate absolutely nothing to even indicate they were of that beyond simply crushing on Gaston (which isn't enough).
+
== Image upload request ==
 
+
In addition, Christianity in the film is not exactly treated in a very good light. Aside from the obvious bit about how marriages were depicted in a very bad light in this film (in fact, it arguably started a string of films where marriage was not depicted in a good light, like Aladdin, Pocahontas, Mulan, etc., etc.), the villagers themselves were themselves depicted in a very bad light, with their Christianity actually being emphasized a few times, like when they explicitly used words like "sin", "say a prayer" and "praise the lord" a few times. Namely, they were depicted as clueless starry eyed simpletons who are basically quick to enter a mob and would even support a plan to get a guy locked up under false pretenses just to ensure their town hero can marry Belle. It is also to be noted that Belle, the one the film actually tries to depict as an intellectual, makes absolutely no religious references in the film, not even once. In fact, only two non-villagers make any references to religion at all: Mrs. Potts when she says praise the lord, and Lumiere's outcry of Sacre Bleu, and I'm not entirely sure they are really all that devoted to the church.
+
 
+
Also, the males in the film, with the sole exception of Chip, are either treated in a very bad light, or if they are treated in a good light, it's for the wrong reasons, meaning it's very likely pushing misandry. Gaston is pretty obvious, but LeFou is depicted as being a jerk prone to talking before thinking, Maurice is depicted as a bit of a madman, even Beast, probably the closest we can get to a truly complex character in the film, was depicted as a jerk and later after Belle convinces him to "control his temper" he becomes so emaciated that he can't even fight back against Gaston unless Belle happened to be nearby, most of the village males were depicted in a very bad light, Cogsworth was depicted as a grouch, and Lumiere was depicted as being an unrepentant womanizer (this was mostly in the special edition with the song Human Again, though even the original film contained hints towards this view), and in Lumiere's case, they even implicitly supported this behavior. Not to mention that I think Maurice is the first dad character in Disney films to actually be depicted as a bumbling dad archetype that was used in various leftist shows and movies. Heck, Gaston himself, according to another user on here, was similar to what conservatives are generally ideally are, which are hard working and, well, being conservative, and he's depicted as the bad guy.
+
 
+
And while I'm not necessarily sure whether this is indeed the case, Dan Rather did indicate that the movie promoted the Gay Agenda, and then there's the mob song which did have a pro-homosexual agenda involved (namely, fearing someone who is a beast under false reasons).
+
 
+
There are also plenty of times where Belle does bad things and she is invariably depicted as being in the right and everyone else is in the wrong, even when the stuff she did actually WAS wrong.
+
 
+
Probably the biggest evidence against it being even a debatably Conservative film, however, is that Linda Woolverton in Time Magazine made clear that the Maleficent Film, which definitely deserved the rank of worst liberal film for more reasons than one, actually reused a lot of plot points from Beauty and the Beast.
+
 
+
Will supply links:
+
 
+
*http://articles.mcall.com/1991-11-22/features/2825583_1_beast-s-castle-fairy-tale-madame-gabrielle
+
*http://time.com/2798136/maleficent-beauty-beast-writer/
+
*http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-01-25/lifestyle/9201241028_1_linda-woolverton-belle-show-scripts
+
*http://www.mouseplanet.com/8500/Linda_Woolverton_and_Belle
+
*http://girlsincapes.com/2014/04/07/princess-evolution/
+
*https://web.archive.org/web/20111009063303/http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/1991/11/17/just-the-way-walt-made-em.html
+
*http://www.urj.ucf.edu/vol5issue2/dickens/essay.php
+
 
+
Since your mom, Phyllis Schlafly, fought against the second wave feminism, I'm a bit surprised you thought the film was deserving of being a conservative film, knowing all of that.
+
 
+
[[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:34, 29 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:Ah, are you going to respond? I don't care if you agree or disagree with me, so long as you at least give me a full response. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:49, 16 March 2016 (EDT)
+
 
+
::So sorry for not noticing this earlier!  I greatly appreciate your insights and look forward to reviewing and responding after some thought.  Thanks for the reminder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:22, 16 March 2016 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::That's alright. I heard that you got distracted regarding something that happened in Germany. Hopefully it won't take too long to do some thinking before reviewing and responding. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:05, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
+
 
+
::::Pokeria1, you make some superb points, which I reviewed carefully, but they are at the margin of the story.  The unmistakable overriding theme, which is really impossible for feminists to change no matter how hard they try, is anti-feminist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:25, 18 March 2016 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::::Hmm... I'm not entirely sure. Katzenberg demanding for a "feminist twist" to the tale when having it rewritten the third time in a row would suggest that IS the overriding theme as well, not merely the margin. Besides, even the screenwriter made it explicit that the film was feminist in nature, and when the main writer makes clear its feminist, it basically means it IS feminist. And just because it has a theme about not judging by appearances doesn't mean it's conservative. Just look at the Matrix trilogy: That has the same theme as well, yet it's one of the worst liberal films. And even Iron Giant is listed as a liberal film even when it promotes forgiveness and also going against your inner vile nature. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:41, 18 March 2016 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Certiorari denied in ''Hotze'' ==
+
 
+
Hi Andy,
+
 
+
Just found out today that the Supreme Court denied certiorari in ''Hotze''.  To be honest, I thought the petition was a longshot (even compared to the normal improbability of certiorari being granted in a particular case), especially after the court denied the ''Sissel'' petition.  Are you working on any other Obamacare cases that you can talk about?  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 16:13, 29 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:A disappointment, but the Court did not grant '''''any''''' certs today.  Thanks for your continued interest.  There is another [[ObamaCare]] [[Origination Clause]] case in the Eastern District of New York, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:29, 29 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
== Another mainstream media attack on arbitration ==
+
 
+
[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/29/1492684/-Corporations-nailed-shut-the-courtroom-door-forced-arbitration-steals-your-rights-and-money This piece] from [[Daily Kos]], which immediately begins with an image suggesting bribery, a sure sign of the high level of academic discourse to follow (end sarcasm).  I'm looking through this to see what I can add to my mainstream media attacks on arbitration list (I also have several dozen articles in an e-mail draft that I should post to my workspace here).  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 16:26, 29 February 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
== Block of SamHB ==
+
 
+
Could you please look into the block of [[User:SamHB]]? [[User:Conservative]] blocked him because he blanked the "article" [[Godless Australia and loneliness]]. But SamHB was right:
+
*At best, this is an ''essay'', and not an ''article''.
+
*It was written just as an attack on [[User:AlanE]].
+
*It is without any content: it just states that Australia is a quite secular country and that a third of all Australians seems to feel lonely. As SamHB said:  '''''This article is a disgrace. It brings disrepute upon Conservapedia. We're trying to be an educational resource'''''
+
Thanks, --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 14:45, 7 March 2016 (EST)
+
::AugustO, before you make accusations, at least get your facts straight.
+
 
+
::There is one central article on [[Atheism and loneliness]] and 8 other related articles dealing with the topic of "atheism and loneliness" in various atheistic countries.  For example, [[Atheistic Japan and loneliness]]. 
+
 
+
::The [[Godless Australia and loneliness]] article was not written as a means to attack AlanE.  AlanE just happens to live Australia which is very nonreligious country compared to many countries. If AlanE did not live in Australia, the article still would have been written. This can be readily seen by the fact that 7 other atheistic/nonreligious countries had an article written about them on the topic of loneliness.
+
 
+
::The article [[Atheism and loneliness]] is an informative article and already has about 9,000 page views despite being about 1.25 years old. A significant portion of the article deals with the loneliness issue in various atheistic/nonreligious countries. So there is some public interest in the loneliness issue for various nonreligious countries.
+
 
+
::Next, many of your complaints have been ignored by Aschlafly. Expect the same for this matter - especially since you did not have your facts straight before lodging your complaint.
+
 
+
::Lastly, as far as SamHB's complaint "This article is a disgrace. It brings disrepute upon Conservapedia. We're trying to be an educational resource", Mr. Schlafly is well acquainted with liberal histrionics, poor judgment and deception and I very much doubt he will take SamHB's complaint seriously. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:21, 7 March 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:::I'm going to try to keep from taking sides, but I'm a little concerned about this as well.  On the one hand, I don't really feel a page should be arbitrarily blanked without discussion.  On the other hand, the page does seem a bit "fishy" to me.  The ungodly never seem to have a problem finding at least superficial if not "intimate" (in all senses of the word) relationships.  They can feel a certain emptiness, but will usually brush it off.  However, I'm not here to argue the factuality of the page.
+
:::For this issue, I'm just not so sure the "you're grounded" technique is the best.  I mean nothing hostile or against either Conservative or SamHB.  Conservative seems to be great in both his contributions and his work against vandals--He also has a lot more experience here than me.  SamBH can't fight vandals, but from what I have seen, works hard to keep the content of CP clean and factual.  He seems to proof-read every new contribution, while still making some of his own.  I'd like to think this could be resolved without walking in the wet cement of others' feelings or using the ban hammer, but I'll leave that to you.--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 15:26, 7 March 2016 (EST)
+
::::SamHB blanked without discussion because he knew he could not support its blanking. That is the primary reason why he was blocked for two weeks. His imperiousness combined with his histrionics and poor judgment earned him the block.
+
 
+
::::Furthermore, on AlanE's talk page he made the absurd and counterfactual claim that loneliness is "about the same everywhere".  A claim which as is simply not true as can be seen here: Atheistic countries and loneliness http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_loneliness#Atheistic_countries_and_loneliness  and through reading the whole article of [[Atheism and loneliness]].
+
 
+
::::There is nothing fishy about the article. Consider that: Atheists have lower marriage rates (see: [[Atheism and marriage]]); as a group have less sexual satisfaction (see: [[Atheism and sexuality]]); the [[atheist movement]]/community is known for being quarrelsome and socially challenged (see: [[Atheist factions]] and [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence]]); [[Atheism and loneliness#Participation in the atheist community is often difficult|participation in the atheist community is often difficult]] and atheists are known for their immorality (see: [[Moral failures of the atheist population]] and [[Atheism and morality]]). 
+
 
+
::::Also, the Apostle John wrote that God is love. And atheists have an inability to satisfactorily explain the existence of love (see: [[Atheism and love]]) nor do they have a reputation for love - especially given the fact that atheistic communism was responsible for about 110,000,000 deaths which is a midpoint estimate (see: [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]]).
+
 
+
::::In addition, atheists have a higher suicide rate (see: [[Atheism and suicide]]).
+
 
+
::::So after all is said and done, why wouldn't we expect atheistic societies to often have significant problems with loneliness? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:49, 7 March 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
I'll certainly agree that atheist's have lower marriage rates.  If they decide to marry, it is usually for romantic reasons only.  For the most part, why "tie yourself down" when you can just "have fun." I'll go along with them having less "sexual satisfaction," too.  Break-ups, divorces, and the lack of lasting relationships in general will then to cause that.
+
 
+
My skepticism comes in when you reach the "the atheist movement/community is known for being quarrelsome and socially challenged."  They'll readily tear apart those who do not agree with them, but if they are not crossed, I'm not so sure I'd think that from what I've seen, anyway.  The main argument for "Participation in the atheist community is often difficult" seems to be that there are few public gatherings where atheists come together as the church does.  To this, my frank response is "duh!"  They have no common cause or purpose to unite behind under such a context.  Rather, they have community project meetings (which are not always bad, but are run by atheists), AA meetings, and all manner of other man-centered groups and activities.<br />
+
I'll certainly agree that atheist relationships are somewhat hollow, but they usually don't even realize that.  My knowledge and research thus far doesn't lead my to really believe this as a whole, however.  Just like [[E%3Dmc²|e=mc<sup>2</sup>]], I guess I'll just back off of this.  Ultimately, I surely could be wrong, but I'm not convinced...yet, at least.<br />--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 17:58, 7 March 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
P.S. Regarding you comment about God being love, I again agree.  Christians know a kind of live they never will.  However, they usually do not recognize this.  Their world view tells them that the superficial "love" they know is all there is. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 18:01, 7 March 2016 (EST)
+
:DavidB$, as far as atheists having a reputation for quarrelsomeness, I would suggest reading the articles [[Atheist factions]] and [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence]] which should clarify things. Also, if you read these three Bible verses: Psalm 14:1, Proverbs 29:11 and Galatians 5:16-21,  the issue of atheist quarrelsomeness will be further clarified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:29, 7 March 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
===What kind of banana republic is this?===
+
On March 7, 2016  [[User:Conservative]] blocked [[User:SamHB]]  with an expiry time of 1 week without any explanation. 90 minutes later, he extended the block to two weeks, this time stating ''"Given the willfulness of the foolish deletion, I reconsidered the block and extended it"''. The next day, [[User:Conservative]] unblocks [[User:SamHB]] and writes at his talk-page: "''I shortened your block. You are now unblocked.''"  '''What kind of banana republic is this?''' Are we all hostages of the mood-swings of one administrator? An administrator who hides most of his edits? Who claims that he has shared his account with other unknown entities? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 15:05, 8 March 2016 (EST)
+
:Hides most of his edits? Are you telling the truth? Also, why do you use the word "he".  Remember, even moose hunting Sarah Palin has more machismo than a liberal. Next, the User: Conservative account has been used by several individuals. Each one of the individuals is a Christian conservative. Aschafly wants more Christian conservatives to edit Conservapedia - not less!
+
 
+
:Lastly, mood swings or intentional unpredictability to keep my/our ideological foes off balance? "Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu. “Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:56, 8 March 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
::*"Hides most of his edits? Are you telling the truth?" You tell me. It is hard to keep track. So perhaps not most edits, but at least an embarrassing amount.
+
::*"Also, why do you use the word "he".  Remember, even moose hunting Sarah Palin has more machismo than a liberal." he/she/it - sorry if I inconvenienced your gender-sensitivity: you yourself have problems  keeping  track of the personal pronouns, why should I?
+
::*"Aschafly wants more Christian conservatives to edit Conservapedia - not less! " We all hope for more Christian conservative editors, but most of us think that they shouldn't hide in a single account! Let them see the light of day and get them their own accounts: this would help to create the image of a vibrant community, instead of creating the impression that  one obsessed individual does most of  the editing on this site...
+
::*I don't see how Sun Tzu gives advice for a collaborative effort like a wiki: it doesn't help that you see everyone who disagrees with you as an enemy.
+
::*I prefer the rule of law over the anarchy you provide with your wanton blocking.
+
::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 18:36, 8 March 2016 (EST)
+
The additional Christian conservatives who have access to the account liked having Sysop/Admin powers from day one of their editing. So it is not a matter of them hiding.  It is instead a matter of them preferring to use a Porsche Conservapedia account instead of using a Volkswagen Conservapedia account. Being a German editor, I am sure you can appreciate this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:29, 8 March 2016 (EST)
+
:"The additional Christian conservatives who have access to the account liked having Sysop/Admin powers from day one of their editing. " Who wouldn't? But then, I was under the impression that this is a meritocracy.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:46, 8 March 2016 (EST)
+
::The wiki content that the members of User: Consrvativism have created has been informative, well-cited and generally has been very popular. A careful screening process was of course applied to all new editors of the account. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:33, 8 March 2016 (EST)
+
:::So, instead of lobbying for <code>userrights</code> (which allows to edit all user rights) you just usurped the position of a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=bureaucrat bureacrat] and handed out "Sysop/Admin powers" to your cronies - banana-republican style. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 02:30, 9 March 2016 (EST)
+
::::No, I asked the owner of the website. And I regret to say that if you asked to be under the User: Conservative editing umbrella, the answer would be no. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:27, 9 March 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
== A request ==
+
I recently made an article called "Declaration Of Independence From Liberalism and would like for it to gain essay status. Could you help me with that, please. [[Libertatem]] ([[User talk: Libertatem|talk]]) 18:26, March 7 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
:Elevated to "Essay" status as requested!  I look forward to reading your additional edits and new pages here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:31, 7 March 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
== Arbitration misconceptions ==
+
 
+
Hi Andy,
+
 
+
As you know, I've been working on the mainstream media attacks on arbitration for almost four years now, and I've started on article on [[Chris Morran]] dedicated to refuting the misconceptions he frequently states in his blog posts.  I'd like to have a more general article on all mainstream media attacks on arbitration, but his work is a good place to start given the sheer number of misconceptions and the tendentiousness in which he maintains them.  So, if you wanted to take a look and offer any advice, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] ([[User talk:GregG|talk]]) 16:47, 11 March 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
== Interesting article about conservatives in academia ==
+
 
+
Andy, an interesting article about conservatives in academia: http://www.register-news.com/opinion/academia-isn-t-bad-for-conservative-professors/article_ba4f5d7d-da55-5e19-8414-febb3e9fc15a.html  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:10, 12 March 2016 (EST)
+
 
+
== Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==
+
 
+
Andy, when you protected the article [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] against editing on March 13, you wrote in the comment "''need to discuss further on the talk page before deleting information here about Jesus''". But at the moment, this discussion feels more like a monologue, as you haven't contributed anything to it since March 10. May I assume that you gave up your untenable position on this subject? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 05:46, 15 March 2016 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Exciting political developments -- including the election results in [[Germany]] -- have temporarily distracted me for the moment.  Thanks for your patience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:40, 15 March 2016 (EDT)
+
 
+
::I'm happy to wait - perhaps not until Nov 8, 2016, but at least for a couple of weeks - especially if this means that you are carefully weighing the arguments. But if the discussion takes this long, the article should reflect that certain statements are not uncontested facts, but currently  under discussion. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:48, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
+
==Backlog on deleting categories==
+
Sir, there is quite a backlog of empty categories needed to be deleted:
+
 
+
*Conservapedia:AFD Category:Subtypes of the Doshas
+
*Conservapedia:AFD Category:Alochaka Pitta
+
*Conservapedia:AFD Category:Blood Purifying Herbs
+
*Conservapedia:AFD Category:Rakta
+
*Conservapedia:AFD Category:Banksters
+
*Conservapedia:AFD Category:Diseases of the Spleen
+
*Conservapedia:AFD Category:Srotamsi
+
*Conservapedia:AFD Category:Kapha Disturbing Foods
+
*Conservapedia:AFD Category:Pitta Disturbing Foods
+
*Conservapedia:AFD Category:Heating Foods
+
*Conservapedia:AFD Category:Rasayanas
+
*Conservapedia:AFD Category:Adaptogens
+
*Category:Astringent Foods
+
*Category:Pitta Soothing Foods
+
*Category:Bitter Foods
+
*Category:Vata Disturbing Foods
+
*Category:Pungent Foods
+
 
+
I tried to follow the deletion insturctions, but I can't seem to get them deleted.  Your assistance would be appreciated.  Many thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 16:16, 21 March 2016 (EDT)
+
::I just completed the tasks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:39, 21 March 2016 (EDT)
+
:::Many thanks.  I am sorry that there are so many of them. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:46, 21 March 2016 (EDT)
+
::::Thanks again. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 14:01, 23 March 2016 (EDT)
+
:::::Uber-many thanks again. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:48, 29 March 2016 (EDT)
+
:::::::Thank you for unblocking me.  I hope that we can complete the category clean up.  I also hope that we can settle outstanding issues in a Christian way.  If I say an link is a bad 404 link, everyone can either take my word for it, or test it for himself.  If the 404 is cured, then I don't mind reinstating the link.  But I know the link is bad and we should remove the link if it was reinstated in the passion of the moment.  Let's work through the problems with mutual respect.  I also hope we can address the factual errors.  If the IRS regulations say that Roth IRAs can't be invested in collectables and that non-bank custodians are tightly controlled, then we need to keep that in the article rather than using links to "letters to the editor" as a basis for taking the opposite view.  Finally, long block quotes beyond fair use or unattributable copy-paste needs to be watched.  I have a reason for every change that I make, and I don't want to pick a fight with anyone.  So, let's find a way forward. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:10, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
 
+
Dear Andy, I am resigning from any further participation in CP.
+
Please delete my CP user account and erase my user page and talk page along with its history. Thank you.
+
[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] ([[User talk:TheAmericanRedoubt|talk]]) 05:55, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
:I am not asking for that.  I just want to find a way to avoid having you go through and reverting every one of my edits followed by me going through and reinstating each one mechanically.  Perhaps you were unaware that Mr. Schlafly gave express permission to edit your essays to remove some red links to Essays with antisemitic-sounding titles.  We did not act unilaterally without permission. As I said on your talk page, I want to go forward with mutual respect and Christian forgiveness. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:20, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
== re: Anthony Weiner article and also the issue of fighting between User: TheAmericanRedoubt and User: JDano ==
+
 
+
TO: User: TheAmericanRedoubt and User: JDano
+
 
+
As far as the Anthony Weiner article, I will admit that the term "gun grabbing" is not encyclopedic. Strong advocate of gun control or similar phraseology would be more appropriate.  It is not appropriate to remove all references to his policy on guns.
+
 
+
Second, making a big deal about his Jewish religion in the first 7 words of an article is not appropriate either. However, totally removing all references to his religion is not helpful either. While I am not a fan of Wikipedia, they typically list a politician's religious persuasion (Baptist, Presbyterian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, etc.).  I do think giving this information is helpful to readers.
+
 
+
User: JDano and User: TheAmericanRedoubt need to work more cooperatively.
+
 
+
Due to time constraints, I am asking User: Karajou and the owner of this website to referee if necessary. I sincerely hope this is not necessary. You both seem to be intelligent individuals. Please start behaving more cooperatively. I know you are both capable of doing so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:52, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
::I think User: The AmericanRedoubt quit being an editor of this wiki. I told him to review my last comment on his talk page and see if it changes his mind. If he does quit, make sure User: JDano doesn't remove all references to candidates being pro gun control (anti right to bear arms). 
+
 
+
::JDano says he is a conservative on this user page. I hope this is the case. I really haven't seen enough of his editing to confirm this matter. I am undecided at this point. He may be a conservative. I just don't know. Please see my comments above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:07, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
:::I will also say that User: Wsacht used to put on a veneer of politeness, but when you do a little more investigation, it became apparent it was merely a veneer. I hope User: JDano is not a sock of User: Wsacht. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:21, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
::::I am a bit hurt that you would say these things, and the response that I left for User:Conservative on my own talk page did not address them because it was not raised with me there.  I think that there no tension between being a true conservative and being an effective and persuasive writer.  Take the Anthony Weiner article as an example.  Here is someone who resigned from Congress and dropped out of his race for NYC Mayor because of online sex scandals.  That alone is a far more powerful message than whether he was in favor of gun control laws or happens to be Jewish.  To pack all of that into the first sentences detracts from the overall article, and sounds like name calling.  I do not object to expanding the article to include a discussion of Weiner's views on gun control or his religion, but it should not be given undue weight.  If someone who has never heard of him reads the article, the basic message should be that his views on public policy issues do not matter because he lost all credibility after a series of sex scandals.  I disagreed with him on a lot of things, but trying to list them all would just be a distraction.  The important fact is his connection to Hilary Clinton, which is included in the article.  Again, management should resolve things with User:TheAmericanRedoubt, within the framework of Mr. Schalfly's prior decisions about Ayruvedic medicine and antisemitism.  Thank you. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:38, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
:::JDano, I am going to talk frankly. I think User: TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) has a beef with Jews - especially those involved with banking or those of the liberal persuasion. Being a Christian, I do think the Jews are God's chosen people so I am not anti-semetic and I am pro-Israel. I haven't discussed with TAR views on Jewish people and I am not saying he is an anti-semite, but I am concerned about this matter. On the other hand, you edited out all reference to Weiner's religion with the edit comment of "religion not relevant".  I have noticed that liberals have a tendency to censor information so I was a bit concerned that you might be Wsacht who was obsessed with TAR.  And you do seem a bit obsessed with TAR.  I was not happy about you deleting all references to his policy on guns either.
+
 
+
:::JDano, I really have a very limited amount of information about you. I haven't looked at a lot of your edits. There is no need to be offended. 
+
 
+
:::I just tried to mediate the situation with very limited information. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:05, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
::::I understand.  As I said, I reached out to User:TheAmericanRedoubt last night and again this morning, but have not heard back.  I the meantime, I have done some research.  [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=TheAmericanRedoubt&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= the block log] shows that he has blocked many, many users.  Based on the way that he blocked me without regard to whether my edits were within policy, I would say that he does not have the temperament to handle blocking decisions.  I wonder how many new users may have been chased away because of his use of blocking authority.  As I have said, I am willing to work with User:TheAmericanRedoubt on the basis of mutual respect and Christian forgiveness. Thank you. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 14:52, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
JDano, I thought things through more. TAR did a lot of editing in the past in a big spurt of editing. You may have ran across some of his edits and then looked at his contribution log. 
+
 
+
It is a good policy not to express suspicions until you have a reasonably strong case. I did not have a strong case. At the very least, I should have looked at your past edits more before expressing any suspicions I had. 
+
 
+
Anyways, I think this is all a moot point. It doesn't look like the TAR editorship situation is going to work out - especially since he does not appear to want to edit Conservapedia anymore. And I don't have the time or inclination to referee anymore due to my present obligations/priorities.
+
 
+
I tried to work with TAR and I tried to get some of his more unreasonable critics to behave more reasonably. And Wsacht acted in a very inappropriate manners towards TAR and so he was blocked.
+
 
+
JDano, best wishes in your future editing at Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:45, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
 
+
:If I may cut in and just add a comment, I know TAR has contributed a lot, but I was a little disappointing to see he undid a number of minor edits I made--often nothing more than a few categories.  In another case, someone (JDano, I think) changed the TOR article to a third person neutral voice.  TAR immediately undid the entire edit, shifting it all back to a first-person biased voice.  I think this is about when he banned JDano. It was a thoughtful and helpful but harmless edit, but it was undone regardless.  Undoing such progress then banning the party responsible seems a little excessive.  This is an open wiki after all, and it wasn't an essay. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 20:23, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
  
== Important template is too big and it needs fixing ==
+
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)
  
It is best not to flood pages with a mass of internal links - especially red links. Yet this template http://www.conservapedia.com/Template:Second_Amendment_topics is a big mass of links (including red links) and it has the term "gun grabber" on it.  I told the creator of the template this "gun grabber" was not an encyclopedic term.
+
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)
  
The template is too big.  For example, a pro-second amendment template doesn't need an "invest in tangibles" link on it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:54, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
== Update MediaWiki, bots ==
:A minor related point is that such "footer termplates" belong at the very bottom of the pages (we have been following the Wikipedia format on this.)  This is because, like categories it is a finding aid that is supplemental to the actual article and not a key part of the article.  It also looks strange strapped across the middle of the page instead of as a footer.  Most of us have been placing them at the bottom.  However, TAR has viewed this as a part of the "See also" section.  The result has been that some of the pages have the See also heading with no bullet points following it, then the footer template(s), and then the references, and external links.  If you clean up a page, please move all footers to the bottom and delete the "See also" heading if there are no see also items.  Many thanks to everyone in what could have been a tense situation. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:09, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
  
== Re: Cleanup work post TheAmericanRedoubt ==
+
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}}
  
User:TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) is not longer going to be an editor.
+
== Yet one more unlock request ==
  
While some cleanup can be done by regular editors (big "See also" sections, pages with too many red links, pages with too many internal links, category tag issues), some of the web pages created are not reader friendly due to them being merely a mass of internal links. So it will require editors with the ability to delete entire pages.  
+
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)
  
While most people's writing can be improved (including my own. I plan on reading ''Elements of Style'' and Zinser's ''On Writing Well''), writing was not TARs strongpoints.  
+
==American Progressivism==
 +
Andy, I would appreciate your yes/no about this.
  
So it looks like some cleanup work needs to be done. He was very active editor for a stretch, so it will require some effort.
+
[[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)
  
I started doing some cleanup, but right now my time is limited in terms of wiki editing. I put some final thoughts on the TAR situation in the community portal area also that is located at:  [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#I_got_an_email:_TAR_is_not_going_to_be_an_editor_anymore_and_I_think_his_decision_is_final Final thoughts on TAR situation]..[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:36, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
== Pro-choice? how about anti-life or pro-death? ==
  
Friends, to help with a consistent clean up, I have prepared a check list for the review of TAR articles.  It can be found at [[User:JDano/TARlist]]. Although it is in my user subpage, you should feel free to edit it. This list is not intended as a criticism of TAR, but rather what we should watch when doing our work.  Many thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 22:43, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
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)
  
== Final thoughts on TAR ==
+
== Night mode problems ==
  
I read some blog posts by a Russian on the circumstances that followed the fall of the Soviet Empire. It definitely was a horrendous situation for many people. For example. some diabetics were not able to find insulin as their was none in their area.  
+
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.
  
If the USA doesn't get its act together, maybe in 20-50+ years the same could happen to the USA.  Europe moving rightward and tepid excitement for Hillary gives me hope. But the popularity of Sanders is not a good sigh (He had his honeymoon in the Soviet Union)
+
Many thanks, --[[User:Toby Chester|Toby Chester]] ([[User talk:Toby Chester|talk]]) 12:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  
So overall, I am glad TAR arrived at this wiki. I learned a few things about preparedness. Maybe that is easy for me to say. I am taking a break from Wiki editing so I think the bulk of cleanup may be done by others.
+
== Double redirect request ==
  
There does appear to be some strong critics of TAR so I think deleting web pages of his that are merely a mass of links is doable. Some of his pages are not merely a mass of links and/or can be cleaned up by removing big "see also" sections. I started on this type of clean up.
+
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)
  
I wish TAR has stayed around longer. Maybe a more reasonable cleanup of his work would have resulted. Having TARs critics doing cleanup work is not an ideal situation. Some of his useful content may be deleted. Maybe TAR will reconsider given the time he spent creating the material. But I have my doubts. 
+
== A request for a lock on [[Infant baptism]] ==
  
TAR was told not to create web pages with nothing but masses of links, big "see also" sections and pages with a lot of red links. So if he leaves for good and some of his useful material is deleted, he has take at least some responsibility for this matter.  And unfortunately, I cannot be of assistance to him at this time. I hope some of the admins or conservative editors will not let his useful information be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:37, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
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)
  
:I'll try to keep an eye on it, but I doubt people will be deleting constructive content.  Anything can happen, I suppose, but most of the edits made to TAR's articles have been to the see-alsos, categories, or voice of content. None the less, I agree that his hard work in the right direction should not go to waste. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 20:26, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
==An election preview==
::I understand your point and welcome reliable and accurate preparedness content.  The problem is that Conservapedia is '''not''' well suited for information that goes out of date quickly.  So, if you want to find what products are on the market or how to perform a task, there are better sites such as homedepot.com or lowes.com.  We are not an amazon.com.  I credit TAR with being a person who studied preparedness issues, but I assume that most of the remaining editors are not as well versed.  So, if I were to make specific product recommendations or offer "how to" advice, there is no guarantee that my advice would be as good as Andy's or David's.  My solution is that preparedness articles can explain important principles (e.g., how a radio works) without offering detailed "how to" advice (e.g., what is the best radio to use at the end of civilization).  We can frame the issues at the 10,000 foot level without trying to write a step-by-step guide. 
+
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)
::I also believe that Conservapedia articles should be written by and for Conservapedia.  We are not here to just scrape articles or check-lists from other preparedness websites.  Rather we can frame the issue and then link to the other websites for details.  This is where TAR's preparedness materials disappointed me. If an idea is too detailed or complicated to put into your own words, you are better off leaving it out of Conservapedia.  It takes time and hard work to write an encyclopedia article, so if all that you have is just a list of bullet points, perhaps you need to think through and put your ideas into whole sentences prior to posting them on Conservapedia.
+
: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)
::When I find whole paragraphs that were lifted from another website (with or without attribution), I generally delete them to avoid exceeding "fair use" limitations on copyrighted materials.  Someone can always go back and reword them.  That does not mean that I hate the substance covered by the deleted materials.  Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:25, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
+
:::JDano, I don't believe that you are Wsacht. Before the latest TAR episode, I had recommended to the owner of the website that you be given deletion of pages authority.
+
  
:::I did temporarily believe that you might be Wsacht due to some input TAR, but I quickly reversed myself on this matter.   
+
==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 requestedThanks for the suggestion!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:56, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
  
:::One of the ironies of TAR is that his fellow atheists (who edit at another website) were his most caustic critics (TAR was a nontheistic Buddhist).  TAR was to the right of these gentlemen on the political spectrum. 
+
== Problem with Talk:Infant baptism ==
  
:::A former editor of this wiki by the name of Ames once called me a "militant theist". I/we have also been called an anti-atheist bigot by some atheists. My cordial relationship with TAR and my cordial off wiki relationship with another atheist/agnostic (she calls herself an atheist but she is really an agnostic) who thanked me for some unsolicited assistance I gave her, easily dispels my/our so-called hatred of atheists. [[Vox Day]] has said that [[social justice warrior|SJW]]s/secular leftists often engage in [[projection]]. I think he is right about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:00, 2 April 2016 (EDT)
+
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)
::::Thank you for your trust.  I suppose that pride could lead someone into thinking that he has only one critic noticing his flaws rather than believing that many people can see the same obvious flawsSince you noticed many of the same problems that I noticed, that would make you a possible Wsacht as well. :-) Thank you for dealing with me in a fair and open-minded manner. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:03, 2 April 2016 (EDT)
+
:I'll take a look but the general policy is to leave talk pages unlockedYou don't have to respond there and everyone knows that a talk page is merely a discussion that typically contains different viewpointsThanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 10:58, 3 November 2019 (EST)
:Actually, he thought you might be Wsacht or a member of a site where he has caustic critics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:22, 2 April 2016 (EDT)
+
::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)
  
Four clean up items that I will leave for others to decide:
+
:::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)
* [[Constitutional carry]] - I think the See Also list needs a trim, but I don't want to appear to be "anti-gun"
+
* [[Essay:Free States Movement]] - just a redirect to [[Free States Movement]] - should it be an essay?
+
* [[Essay:The_coming_Islamic_Tet_Offensive_in_Europe]] - not written by TAR, but copy-pasted from another blog. (Do we have permission to repost?)
+
* [[Essay:World War III has already started]] - not written by TAR, but copy-pasted from another blog (Do we have permission to repost?)
+
Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:10, 2 April 2016 (EDT)
+
  
Thank you for deleting those three pagesThe other deletion point worthy of discussion is the following paragraph that TAR included in many articles:
+
::::Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there is anything that Dataclarifier should or should not doI 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)
<blockquote>According to '''X''', [[liberals]] and [[socialist]]s support so-called "common sense" measures - a "good first step" of the [[Police state]] - [[Nanny state]]. To a [[conservative]] [[citizen]]-[[prepper]]-[[patriot]] [[Oath Keeper]] and to the [[Bill of Rights]], this is "[[incrementalism|death by a thousand paper cuts]]". (See [[List of celebrities against Second Amendment]])
+
  
'''X''' supports the [[Second Amendment Foundation]] and this video, which is the formal response to [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]]'s [[Demand a Plan]] [[gun control|gun-grabbing]] [[propaganda]] video. The video shows one of the main differences between [[liberal]] [[gun control]] [[Nanny state]]s / [[leftist|progressive]] [[police state]]s ([[Blue state]]s) and [[conservative]] and/or [[libertarian]] [[Second Amendment]]-supporting "[[Essay:Free States Movement|free state]]s" (many [[Red state]]s). This video shows why [[conservative]]s and [[libertarian]]s "[[vote with your feet|vote with our feet]]": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBelF4UddcY<ref>As of December 8, 2014, there are 60,819 views on [[YouTube]] of [[Second Amendment Foundation]]'s ''Equal [[Gun Rights]]'', Online. Published on Feb 24, 2013. http://equalgunrights.com and http://saf.org. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBelF4UddcY.</ref></blockquote> where X is the name of the page. Someone would concluded that an editor had the goal of inserting links to the video throughout the internet.  There is no reason to believe that in fact Mr. '''X''' said these things.  This paragraph just says that Mr. '''X''' favors the Second Amendment and the Second Amendment Foundation.  No source is given.  I don't have the time to research whether each of these people or organizations specifically endorsed this video. The result is unencyclopedic content, and this particular video has not gone viral even after three years.  Should we delete all of the copies of this particular paragraph other than the one on the Second Amendment Foundation page?
+
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)
:::The problem with that paragraph that TAR inserted in many places is that the paragraph is too heavy laden with internal links. Content with too many internal links in a paragraph is visually unappealing.  In addition, an internal link is a choice. Should I click the link or not? And people don't like to be flooded with a lot of choices in rapid fire. Furthermore, if you use an internal link to a specific internal article on a page, you should generally only use it once. TAR often did not do that so you had on a page "[[Nanny state]]" appearing many times on the same page.  
+
: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.
  
:::And TAR's content often tries too hard to get people to read his content on other pages via internal links and not enough time conveying to his readers concisely the point he wanted to make.  
+
:::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)
  
:::In addition, I told him not to use bare links.   
+
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."
  
:::In short, his content was often visually unappealing and displayed poor writing skills.  
+
::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)
  
:::Looking back, at an earlier point, TAR should have been made to clean up his old content, before he was allowed to create any new content.  
+
:::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)
  
:::I know TAR is a smart guy. And I agreed with his content that was conservative (smaller government, second amendment, etc.). At the same time, he could have improved his writing skills, used less internal links, fixed his category tag issues when it was appropriate to do so (category tags are a very small part of a web page and it doesn't make sense to get into category tag wars)
+
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)
  
:::Unfortunately, he wasn't willing to clean up his old content or he didn't have the time to do it. I know improving one's writing takes a considerable amount of time and effort. But it is doable for smart guys like TAR.
+
== Problem: Obsessive redundant repostings ==
  
:::It is also unfortunate that a lot of time was spent fighting over his legitimate conservative views by others instead of them helping him more to be a better content provider stylistically. On the other hand, even if they were willing to assist him more, I don't think TAR was too coachable. I think he liked the way he did things stylistically or thought it was good enough and he was unwilling to change. For example, lots of internal links, big "see also" sections, unencyclopedic tone (gun grabber, etc. etc.), lots of red links that were not going to be timely filled in, etc. etc.  
+
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)
  
:::Lastly, I do believe in sourcing. People want to see wiki articles sourced. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:34, 3 April 2016 (EDT)
+
: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)
As of April 3, 2016, there were 63,103 views. So, we know the ''status quo'' is unsatisfactory.  The question is whether it is possible to find a source to support each Mr. X as being a supporter of this video. This [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?search=UBelF4UddcY&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 retrieval] shows 9 places where the paragraph currently exists.  May I delete all of them except the Second Amendment Foundation?  Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 14:42, 3 April 2016 (EDT)
+
:Given my current off wiki responsibilities, I spent too much time on the TAR situation. Just do what you think is best. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:50, 3 April 2016 (EDT)
+
  
Now that all of us are agreed that TAR is gone and needs to stay gone (as per the section title "Final thoughts on TAR"), there is one more step that you, Andy, should take, and that is to revoke TAR's blocking rights.
+
:Perhaps we need a page on [[Wikietiquette]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:13, 6 November 2019 (EST)
  
I put the following note on the community portal yesterday, under the heading "We need to put a complete and permanent stop to this".
+
::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)
  
:Our attempts to clean up [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TAR]]'s mess, and start turning this site back into an educational resource for school-age students, has been repeatedly interrupted by TAR coming back, reverting people's work, and blocking people. This most recent case is not the first time he has declared that he is retiring from Conservapedia.  People need to have confidence that their work will not be destroyed, in a way that makes repair incredibly difficult, by this person.
+
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)
  
:Therefore, I respectfully recommend that his block privileges be revoked, so that he can't unblock himself and resume his destructiveness.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:03, 2 April 2016 (EDT)
+
:Dataclarifier, we live in a post [[Protestant Reformation]] period where Protestantism is growing rapidly in the world.
  
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 17:36, 3 April 2016 (EDT)
+
: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)
::I suppose TAR could unblock himself and then block User:Conservative for today's deletions.  Perhaps his "powers" could be suspended until after he helps complete the clean up process. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 18:35, 3 April 2016 (EDT)
+
::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)
:::I complained about TAR too much. If he wasn't for TAR, I wouldn't have rethought about how the [[Austrian school of economics]] have better predicted recessions/depressions and how many of these economists/financial experts are predicting an upcoming economic collapse.
+
:::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)
  
:::Yes, his content could have been written/formatted much better. But I think I am looking a gift horse in the mouth. Sometimes a timely messenger comes wearing camel hair and a leather belt instead of wearing a three piece suit. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 02:14, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
+
== error in link to external source needs minor correction ==
----
+
  
There is a problem with [[Essay:Survivalist Retreat Potential Rank]] which is based on Rawles' list of the top states he would recommend to survivalists. The essay lists the states at the top of the essay and then proceeds to give a detailed analysis of each of the listed states.  The problem is that TAR only filed out the first state and the rest are just empty section headings.  Should this essay be deleted as a part of the clean up effort?  It looks so half-finished. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:52, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
+
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.)
:I fixed it. Also, at this point, I cannot do any further work on the TAR material or give input about it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:53, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
+
:error https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/12:48.htm
::Thank you for your assistance. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:02, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
+
:correction https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/12-48.htm
 +
Thanks, Andy. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:31, 9 November 2019 (EST)
  
== More final thoughts on TAR -- just revoke his block rights ==
+
== Conservative of the Year 2019 ==
  
Andy:  Please look at the discussion going on at the Community Portal.  A number of people are putting a great deal of effort into repairing the damage that TAR has done in the past. Always under the threat that TAR will come back '''yet again''', as he has done in the past after stating that he wouldn't, and wreck everything '''yet again'''.  Please put a stop to this.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:32, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
+
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)
  
:According to [[User:Conservative]], [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] is "disappearing from CP for good". As Andy said that removing the block rights is the "customary action taken after someone resigns; rights can always be restored if requested", he certainly will revoke TAR's block rights, too. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 11:25, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
+
== Bilski v. Doll ==
  
::What is the specific objection to TAR?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:43, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
+
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 wrote above: "TAR was told not to create web pages with nothing but masses of links, big "see also" sections and pages with a lot of red links."
+
  
:::In addition, his writing skills could be better.
+
: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)
  
:::At this point, since TAR has said emphatically and repeatedly that he is not coming back (on this wiki and via email to me), I think the cost/benefit of blocking him is worth doing. Some editors are unhappy about the clean up work that is being done post TAR. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:35, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
+
== Scribes (Bible) ==
  
==References==
+
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)
{{reflist}}
+
: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)

Latest revision as of 19:38, 12 November 2019

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

Hello,
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)

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: [12] This setback for the Left might be a good MPR entry. --1990'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. 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)

Night mode problems

I have been having some problems with this 'night mode' 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, --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? --1990'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 reference notes of the body of the article and in the listing of 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. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

Locked as requested. Will also put a message directing folks to the talk page.--Andy Schlafly (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. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 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. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:09, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Main page popular articles

Could you add The New Colossus, at least just for a few weeks. Progressingamerica (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2019 (EDT)

Done as requested. Thanks for the suggestion!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

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. --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.--Andy Schlafly (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, 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.
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.--Andy Schlafly (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. 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. --1990'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. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 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. --1990'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. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:08, 3 November 2019 (EST)
A link could even be made from Infant baptism to his Essays. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 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 --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. --1990'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. 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.) --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2019 (EST)
(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. --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. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:03, 5 November 2019 (EST)
For example: Essay: Differing perspectives on infant baptism. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 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. --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. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2019 (EST)

Do not remove other peoples ongoing discussions. That is a blockable offensive. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 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. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:09, 6 November 2019 (EST)
Perhaps we need a page on Wikietiquette. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 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. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2019 (EST)
Talk:Infant baptism clearly directs all debate on doctrine to Debate: Infant baptism. It isn't hidden. --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)
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. --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. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 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. --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.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. Wikignome72 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2019 (EST)
Copying text to another page without removing it from the page copied is not a move. --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.
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. --Dataclarifier (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2019 (EST)

Conservative of the Year 2019

I have created the Conservative of the Year 2019 article. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2019 (EST)

Terrific start!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:05, 9 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 (1,2) don't have the same name as the case, so it seems to me that the situation is relatively complicated. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2019 (EST)

I improved both. Please let me know if further edits would be helpful. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (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 --Dataclarifier (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2019 (EST)

Wow, that's fabulous! Very well done.--Andy Schlafly (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). --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2019 (EST)
Looks even better now. I did a minor punctuation improvement. Terrific work.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2019 (EST)