Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(I would like my account deleted: new section)
(I would like my account deleted: Parthian shots are common ... and unpersuasive.)
Line 191: Line 191:
Again and again I go to write an article or contribute, and I realize that it's not a good use of my time to improve this wiki. I don't feel like there is any commitment to excellence here. I feel like the quality of analysis and effort that I have to contribute is just too high to fit in with repetitive essays about flying felines. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:46, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
Again and again I go to write an article or contribute, and I realize that it's not a good use of my time to improve this wiki. I don't feel like there is any commitment to excellence here. I feel like the quality of analysis and effort that I have to contribute is just too high to fit in with repetitive essays about flying felines. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:46, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
:[[Parthian shots]] are common ... and unpersuasive.  If you're a believer in the [[theory of evolution]], despite its many [[Counterexamples to Evolution|counterexamples]], or an [[Old Earth]], despite its many [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|counterexamples]], then why not simply say so?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 20:34, 11 April 2011

Post Comments Here


Where is the button to remove the stupid pages vandals create? Nate 17:45, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

It's available to users who acquire extra privileges based on merit.--Andy Schlafly 00:06, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Delete a page

Andy could you delete Cherringtonshire - it appears to be a fake town.--IDuan 21:52, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

Done. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 00:06, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

GHHJ vandal

User GHHJ has been vandalizing pages under the guise of copy editing. BradB 23:45, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

Great catch. That user is blocked now.--Andy Schlafly 00:06, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

More deletions

Andy could you check the recent changes? There are two pages (with vulgar names) that need deleting - I added a delete tag on both; they were created very recently--IDuan 12:05, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Deleted them. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 16:45, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Can you check this?

I see you have been working on this page so can you please check my edit here? I don't like my wording so much and unsure if I get the point across correctly. Thanks Andy. MaxFletcher 16:17, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

I already saw it. It looks like a great start to making an important point. Well done!--Andy Schlafly 16:44, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
Thank you, Andy. MaxFletcher 16:49, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Monty Python

Hey, the monty python page has a link for Terry Jones, but the page it is linking to isn't actually about the Terry Jones from monty python but is instead about the Pastor, Terry Jones. If I wanted to create a page for Terry Jones the comedian, what name should I give the article? BobO 20:20, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

How about Terry Jones, the comedian?--Andy Schlafly 21:20, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
Or Terry Jones (comedian). MaxFletcher 21:40, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
Or possibly Terry Jones of Monty Python MikeOxlong 18:41, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
It would have to be something like Terry Jones (comedian), as this man has done other work not related to Monty Python. Karajou 18:51, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
Or we could use one of our handy disambiguation pages. Martyp 19:08, 21 March 2011 (EDT)


Please look at the edits of GuyMarsden I think he might be a vandal. I have reverted some. Gerrard 12:47, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

John 4:53

  • I explained here again how John 4:53 is not one of the Counterexamples to Relativity.
  • I adjusted the count of Counterexamples to Relativity.
  • you wrote But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is action at a distance in the Bible. If you can find a verse where action at a distance is described in the Bible, I'd like to read it.

AugustO 12:48, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

August (the same name as my great-grandfather, though my guess is that his real name was the Christian form, "Augustine"), I urge you to take our test on openmindedness. The plain meaning of the biblical passage, in my humble opinion, is that the event occurred at the same moment.
You ask for another example. Here's one: Matthew 27:51 (our modern translation should be improved to express how it happened at the same moment).--Andy Schlafly 16:23, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
The name August was certainly more popular in your great-grandfather's time than it is today. In the German speaking countries, you will find August much more often than Augustin (which is the more popular surname, though). I'm always glad to here about another August(in)!
As for Matthew 27:51: it isn't clear at all whether these events happened at the same time or in rapid succession. At least it seems that the verse Matthew 27:50 indicates that Jesus cried out before He released His spirit.
I'm interested in you input on Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53 and Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#John_4:53. I hope I made it clear how John 4:53 isn't an example for an action-at-a-distance, and I'd like to strike it from the list of counterexamples (again).
AugustO 13:00, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the unblock. As I said elsewhere: The idea of two events of infinitesimal duration happening at the same point in time is a new notion, introduced by the CBP. IMO, it's a mistaken idea - and I will try to elaborate my thoughts on this matter.
AugustO 13:12, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

Just wanted to let you know...

I've changed my mind on the Libya attack. I've been thinking about it and what you said makes a lot of sense. That's all. TerryB 13:06, 21 March 2011 (EDT)


Hey - could you unlock Ronald Wilson Reagan so I can sub out the template? Thanks!--IDuan 15:37, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

Done!--Andy Schlafly 16:02, 21 March 2011 (EDT)


Hey Andy! Just to update you on what I've been working on - we now have a page on almost every Supreme Court justice ever. Most are stubs (which contain information on perhaps their most important opinion, and of course a template showing the positions they served in), but quite a few are fleshed out - like Stephen Johnson Field and Frank Murphy. When I'm done (and admittedly I do have about 18 more to go, having personally created 39), perhaps we could feature one of those two on the main page? Thanks to the templates, they're are plenty of wikilinks to find others.--IDuan 23:44, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

Great effort! I would like to feature this on the front page when you're finished.--Andy Schlafly 00:08, 22 March 2011 (EDT)


He's a liberal vandal and has vandalized numerous MSM-related articles. DennyW66 12:46, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

Update- Tehczar is also a parodist and should be blocked. He's created numerous new articles, and since I don't have the right to delete them I suggest a higher-uplook at them and delete or revise them. Some articles have merit if revised, but others (Big Mac) are worthless and some (chalkboard) openly mock conservatives. DennyW66 13:08, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

Unlock request

Hey Andy, I noticed a typo I made in Template:Supreme Court - misspelling a justices name; could you unlock it so I could fix that?--IDuan 10:16, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Done!--Andy Schlafly 10:31, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
Thanks! Done myself--IDuan 14:06, 23 March 2011 (EDT)


User "Jed" has made articles titled "wan--r" and "s---head" and redirected them to your userpage. Obviously, this liberal should be banned. DennyW66 16:02, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Blocked the users - need a sysop to delete vandal's pages, which I marked with delete tags.--IDuan 16:06, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly, the integrity of the wiki...

I like this site. But some of the 'essays' seem a little bizarre. The rant about obesity and atheism is pretty alarming, for two reasons. Firstly, we must argue the case for our religion on its own merits, on the truth of it, on the Bible. The fact that the religious man is thinner (or happier, or wealthier) than an atheist is no more relevant, as the saying goes, than a drunk man being happier than a sober man: It does not make drunkeness the correct status, not at all. The second reason for this is that practically every study shows that obesity and religiosity are linked. The fattest states are the most religious, without a doubt. A simple ranking of states by religiosity compared to a list of states by obesity rates will show this, and this study (http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/24/frequent-church-goers-frequently-fatter/) shows clearly that the scientific consensus agrees. Sir, you have an excellent site, with thousands of pages, so I ask you for a sincere answer: Why allow the integrity of the whole site to be ridiculed by this nonsense? DaleKing 15:21, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

I, for one, would take your ranting a little more seriously if you knew that "Bible" takes an upper-case "B." Martyp 15:27, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
A typo, now fixed, thank you for pointing this out. DaleKing 15:33, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
Aschlafly has already answered this type of question on a number of occasions. Humor is an important learning tool. Moreover, the user who wrote the essays in question has worked hard to meticulously document his claims with an extraordinary amount of evidence -- much more than the one or two blog posts that you mention. Perhaps you should contribute to the project in any small way and improve it, if you are so concerned about its "integrity," rather than just whining about things. Martyp 15:42, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
In furtherance of Martyp's comments, studies show that atheism is correlated with poor diet and less exercise, the two biggest causes of obesity. I don't think anyone disputes this, but obviously many are unaware of it. Preach atheism, and an effect is going to be fatter people. Given that obesity is the number one cause of health problems and shortening lifespan, this is a fact that needs more publicity, not less.--Andy Schlafly 16:43, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
The way I see it is that the religious have a reason to do things the require physical activity such as helping out in the community (mowing the lawn for someone disabled perhaps) while an atheist doesn't have anything to drive him or her and is more than happy to just, well, sit there. MaxFletcher 19:01, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
That's probably one reason. Another reason is that the more atheistic someone is, the more likely is to do what he wants rather than what is good.
The man featured in the Shroud of Turin wasn't fat.--Andy Schlafly 20:04, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
One could argue that the religious would want to eat more natural healthy foods as provided by God whereas the atheist, who believes man is the preeminent being, would eat more man-made foods such as McDonalds. MaxFletcher 20:14, 24 March 2011 (EDT)


Hi Andy, over the last few days I have been unable to view Conservapedia but now it is back for me. Someone on wikipedia gave me an email address to use after I bought this issue up on the talkpage. If you or someone else got my email and fixed the issue I am thankful. MaxFletcher 18:54, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

Got your email reply, thanks again. MaxFletcher 19:09, 24 March 2011 (EDT)


the user SOIHEARDULEIKMUDKIPZ is vandalizing.--Moshe 20:19, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

Blocked, thanks for your revert. MaxFletcher 20:21, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

Could you step in here

I don't think calling people names is right and I do not think your sysop is being appropriate in his response to me. I should not be persecuted for trying to make sure we act like adults. --AlaskanEconomy 17:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

AlaskanEconomy, you're not being persecuted at all; that's really an unwarranted accusation; for someone who proclaims to be against name-calling, you seem awfully fine in dishing out hyperbolic attacks. Also, just so you know, when you want to do inter-wiki links, you separate the text that you want to show up from the link with a | (unlike with external links where all you need is a space). I fixed the link you left in this section for you. Happy editing!--IDuan 18:40, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
I question whether calling someone, for example, a "smoker" would constitute namecalling. Ditto for saying someone is obese.--Andy Schlafly 21:06, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
How about calling someone a "big fat, idiot"? Al Franken managed to make that phrase refer to Rush Limbaugh. Just try googling it.
But sly remarks like trying to make sure we act like adults are a form of personal attack and should be avoided, okay, A.E.? --Ed Poor Talk 15:09, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
It's not right to call rush limbaugh a big fat idiot, it wouldn't be right to call Newt flabby, I would feel insulted if you called me flabby and you I'm sure would feel the same way if I turned about and did it to you. --AlaskanEconomy 16:26, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

Conservative benefits edit

I saw your recent edit to the conservative benefits essay, and I was wondering why you removed the adjective "small" from the example describing the conservative women's convention and the remarriage rate. I went through the edit history and you originally added that specific example on 2/14/10. Did you find more information about the conference? DennyW66 23:43, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

I don't know why the word "small" was in there. There were a good number of remarried widows among hundreds of attendees at the conference.--Andy Schlafly 00:14, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

Accessing Conservapedia

I have had a lot of trouble the last few days. Hope it's all OK. MaxFletcher 21:03, 31 March 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia is working better than ever. Thanks for your interest.--Andy Schlafly 21:14, 31 March 2011 (EDT)

Thank you Mr. Schlafly

For granting me extra user rights, and for the kind words. DMorris 22:54, 3 April 2011 (EDT)

IP range block

Sorry to bother you, but I have been rangeblocked, and have messed up the Ada Lovelace article because of it, and I can't fix it. See my note on Ed Poor's talk page. I wonder if you could unblock 71.174.xx.xx? It would really make life easier for me. Thanks. SamHB 00:13, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for fixing it! It really seems to be working this time. SamHB 20:43, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

Article/Essay idea

I was looking at the "Conservative Movies/Songs" articles and wondered if I could start a "Worst Liberal Movies" article. Though I am still pretty fuzzy on the US Conservative/Liberal thing I do know there are a lot of movies out there that push bad messages. What do you think? MaxFletcher 19:04, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Great idea ... but it might be a very long list!--Andy Schlafly 21:45, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
Obviously it'd be the most prominent examples! I'll get cracking and pass you a link to look at. MaxFletcher 22:10, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
Just off the top of my head: Essay:Worst_Liberal_Movies. MaxFletcher 22:20, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Matthew and John

Dear Andy Schlafly, I understand that you as the owner of Conservapedia have many responsibilities which you have to attend to. So it's not surprising that you can't react to every single issue which some editor raises. But obviously, you are taking great interest in the Conservapedia Bible Project, so I would like you to help me with the following problems which I encountered within the project. I raised these question in a slightly different form on other places, but I think it is convenient to have them here, easy for you to answer. Thank you for your help!

  1. (John 4:52) Which answer would you give to a kid in Sunday School who asks: How did the servants knew that it was 1 o'clock?
  2. (John 4:46-54) You wrote: The instantaneous healing is central to the purpose of the event. and the point of the story is that it happened at the same moment. How so? Why had the healing to be spontaneous, when the creation of the world took six days?
  3. (Matthew 27:51) At Bible Translation Issues, no. 17, you wrote: The word "behold" appears frequently in the KJV but lacks a modern equivalent. Is there a strategy for this dealing with this concept? Possibilities include "rejoice", "observe", "listen", "note that", and ignoring it altogether (which modern versions often do). Here, you omit the nuance at the moment which you used in Matthew 27:51. I checked a couple of dictionaries and failed to find at the moment as a translation of ἰδού. Where did you find it?
  4. (Matthew 27:51) The New International Version starts the verse with At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn.., but this at that moment seems to be a translation of the leading καὶ (in fact of the string of καὶ-καὶ-καὶ), while ἰδού is dropped from the sentence altogether - as you observed rightly in Bible Translation Issues.
  5. Isn't it a little bit unsettling that this crucial nuance of ἰδού is used in CBP's translation for the first and only time in Matthew 27:51, a verse which is used later on in Counterexamples to Relativity?

AugustO 10:03, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

Blocked simply for logging in from a NASA-owned computer

I am an employee at NASA Ames Research Center, and thought that I could contribute to this encyclopedia. However, upon creation of my account, it was instantly blocked before I could even make a single contribution. Please see http://www.conservapedia.com/User:AM.

The reason for being blocked was 'Abuse of a computer system owned by the U.S. or other Government: NASA'. Are all NASA employees blocked from Conservapedia? I find it very strange that one would instantly block any user from one of the United States' first and foremost research institutions.

I know that it is against the Conservapedia guidelines to create a new account when one's first one is blocked, but I thought that this should come to your attention. I hope that it is looked into. I very much like the idea of a counter-bias to Wikipedia, but I cannot imagine any encyclopedia being successful if it does not allow for entries by respected scientific entities.


The answer is very interesting to me too as my special interest Korean Airlines Flight 007 is of interest, or rather, I hope should be of interest, to government workers and angencies of the United States government. My website http://www.rescue007.org/ , that of the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors, received many hits from the Armed services, military acadamies, and government agencies. A number of years ago, almost overnight, that ceased. Same reason? BertSchlossberg 22:47, 10 April 2011 (EDT)

I would like my account deleted

Again and again I go to write an article or contribute, and I realize that it's not a good use of my time to improve this wiki. I don't feel like there is any commitment to excellence here. I feel like the quality of analysis and effort that I have to contribute is just too high to fit in with repetitive essays about flying felines. --AlaskanEconomy 20:46, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Parthian shots are common ... and unpersuasive. If you're a believer in the theory of evolution, despite its many counterexamples, or an Old Earth, despite its many counterexamples, then why not simply say so?--Andy Schlafly 21:34, 11 April 2011 (EDT)