Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(blanking in progress)
Line 1: Line 1:
Hi! Thank for for creating this website.
[[User talk:Aschlafly/Archives|Archive Index]]
== Question about Government Homework ==
Mr. Schlafly,
When I went to post my homework answers last night, Conservapedia did not allow me to “edit” the page. Does the website have a curfew? And for the future, when precisely are the homework assignments due? Thanks. --[[User:MorganBT|MorganT]] 17:42, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
:Editing was turned off by the system for a few hours yesterday.  Sorry for any inconvenience due to not being able to post.  Assignments are due on Wednesdays, but it's not a problem that this homework was late.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
::Thank you for clarifying. --[[User:MorganBT|MorganT]]
==iPSC therapies==
Sorry to belabor the point, but I thought you might find this interesting.  There are currently fifteen active clinical trials in the United States using patient-derived stem cells ("adult stem cells") to treat spinal cord injuries.  At least [http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01624779?term=stem+cell+spinal+cord+injury&rank=13 one of these trials] uses [[induced pluripotent stem cells]] derived from terminally-differentiated cells.  In spite of the astronomical cancer risk associated, this ''is'' an active area of clinical research in the United States.--[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 17:58, 20 November 2012 (EST)
:The link says the location is South Korea, not the United States.
:Anti-life types have not, and will not, allow meaningful therapy with adult stem cells in the United States for victims of paralysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 20 November 2012 (EST)
::Fair enough.  [http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01328860?term=autologous+stem+cell+spinal+cord+injury&rank=1 This is a current clinical trial at Baylor] using bone marrow derived stem cells to treat spinal cord injury.--[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 00:01, 21 November 2012 (EST)
:::You're right that this clinical trial is in the United States (Texas).  Thanks for finding and linking to it.  But look at how small and limited the study is:  '''only ten people, and perhaps half of them would receive a placebo rather than the stem cell treatment'''.  Allowing stem cell treatment on only 5 persons every 3 years (the study won't complete until 2014) is so little that it is almost nothing.
:::It is surprising that the study excludes non-English-speaking patients.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 21 November 2012 (EST)
==Panera Bread==
This company must cater to the liberal/harassment crowd, including the one on Mowry Avenue, Fremont; they have that certain "homosexual execution" accuser sitting there now.  Should we give them a call?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 21 November 2012 (EST)
:What did the manager say?  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 18:40, 21 November 2012 (EST)
== GregG ==
I would recommend granting him delete privileges, as he has shown himself to be a fair sysop, and always vigilantly watching for spammers. Also, please do something about the 30 odd pages that still need to be deleted. Thanks, [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:52, 21 November 2012 (EST)
==Template fun==
I am getting rusty on the template programming syntax, so it took me a few edits to get the right result on both the template documentation and on the individual articles (which should not show extra blank lines in the box.)  Everything is fine now, so please protect away. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:03, 22 November 2012 (EST)
:Well done!  I've reprotected the template.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 22 November 2012 (EST)
== Epistle to the Hebrews ==
The idea that Jesus is the author of this text is held only by you. Is this enough to put it into an article? Please remember: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable. " --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:38, 22 November 2012 (EST)
: Um, I also hold the same belief as Aschlafly that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Jesus as I don't believe no one else would of had the insight to do it. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 04:54, 23 November 2012 (EST)
::@Dvergne: You are highlighting  the danger of the situation: any person not being well informed can be mislead by the authoritative statement in the article!
::@Aschlafly: I'm trying to get a kind of poll of the sysops - at least of those (ten including you) who have edited this year (out of a total of thirty!)
::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:32, 25 November 2012 (EST)
== Deletion of [[User:GregG/Archive of User:Conservative FYI]] ==
[[User:Conservative]] deleted this page '''in my userspace''' without an explanation.  I tried to contact him twice about the deletion at his message area, but he oversighted both of my contributions and protected his message area.  Thus, I am asking you to either have [[User:Conservative]] explain the deletion of a page in my userspace and/or have the page restored.  I also think that [[User:Conservative]]'s actions in this matter qualify as abuse of administrative powers (and, as an aside, are very ironic considering this user's campaign against those who lack what he/she/it/they/I call "machismo").  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:05, 24 November 2012 (EST)
:GregG, you may look back and thank me.  You are starting to get obsessed with my every edit and keeping a log of some of my non-main space edits. You are beginning to resemble evolutionists/atheists with [[Essay: Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]].  Just look at my deletion as an "intervention". A cold splash of water in the face to break your obsession with me.
:We both know what is mainly causing this obsession. You inability to defend evolutionism against valid criticism plus my pointing out that [[Ken Miller]] can't either.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:21, 24 November 2012 (EST)
::This has nothing to do with evolution or religion.  I am not obsessed with you.  Also, it's ironic that this charge is coming from someone who showed enough dedication to my contributions and/or the recent changes page to '''delete a page in my userspace'''.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:35, 24 November 2012 (EST)
::'''ETA''' Also, I don't see dedication to this project as a disorder.  I trust that you wouldn't either, given your extensive contributions to the project.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:35, 24 November 2012 (EST)
:::GregG, now I am really beginning to worry. You are engaging in denialism about your obsession with me. Denialism is a classic symptom of atheists/evolutionists and individuals with [[Essay: Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]].  Do whatever it takes to break your cycle of obsession! Here are [http://www.beliefnet.com/Health/Emotional-Health/Bipolar/15-Ways-to-Stop-Obsessing.aspx 15 ways to stop obsessing]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 24 November 2012 (EST)
::::By your logic, everyone is "obsessed" with Conservapedia; those who deny such, according to you, are exemplifying symptoms.  Simply ridiculous.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:20, 25 November 2012 (EST)
::::: Why don't you both focus on the original topic? I thought userspaces were supposed to be left to the user in question on this project. Isn't that one of the ways we are different from Wikipedia? I seem to recall reading that somewhere on here. Unfortunately, I can't see the page so I don't know what it said. But I think Conservative needs to explain his deletion. This has nothing to do with evolution, obsession, creationism, or any of the other things you guys have been getting into in this thread. It is a more simple matter than that. Focus. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:39, 25 November 2012 (EST)
== Feast of Christ the King is today ==
Perhaps this would be good to mention on our main page.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:21, 25 November 2012 (EST)
:Hi Greg! It's almost time to begin our wait for the birth of Jesus Christ next week. Hope all is well. Because of His merciful love, Nate [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 15:00, 25 November 2012 (EST)
== spambots ==
You really should look into some way of installing questycaptcha. Also, any idea why they lately aren't spamming links to external sites, but rather spamming us with a wall of text, of no apparent advertisement value?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:09, 25 November 2012 (EST)
== Possible page protection ==
Andy would you consider protecting [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] - currently it's only subject to redundant edit warring that is August removing the theory and MattyD parodying. This type of edit warring isn't good for the page.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 12:23, 26 November 2012 (EST)
:Full disclosure after that initial request the edit warring has died down (hopefully because they finally realized how futile edit warring is)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 12:32, 26 November 2012 (EST)
::What parody? I'm convinced! [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 18:34, 26 November 2012 (EST)
== Unprotect ==
Hello; could you unprotect [[Template:cquote]] for 2 minutes for me? There's a bug in the template that's causing every page it's featured on to be listed in the categrory [[:Category:Template Debug]]. Thanks so much! --<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:12, 26 November 2012 (EST)
:Could you re-protect it?--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 22:58, 27 November 2012 (EST)
== Photos ==
I wrote articles for [[Jagdpanther]] and [[Tiger I tank]], recently. I hate to bother you admins as I have seen you have to spend way too much time with spam and reverting vandalism. If you have the time could you find a photo for the articles? I don't know how to upload, nor determine a fair-use photo. Maybe it is something I could learn; is there a guide for it? Cheers,
== Revisiting blocking due to names ==
Hi, best wishes to you on this lovely Sunday. :-) I have a small concern that I was wondering if you'd care to consider: blocking due to user names. Moments ago Dvergne blocked new user LordByron with an expiry time of 6 months with this reason: ("Silly and/or foul username. Account may be recreated as a first name and last initial"). I was wondering if we are being a bit too hasty in blocking for this reason? Certainly we have had way too many spammers/vandals/inappropriate name accounts, and have had to block way more than we should, but to block so quickly before a single edit is made, in a case like this where the use name is not particularly inappropriate, could this be a bit hasty on our part? Could we be discouraging legitimate users? I was just thinking that many older users such as myself, have "nonstandard" user names: Karajou, Conservative, JMR10, are a few other editors that come to mind. We are all valued, responsible editors, although we have non-traditional user names. Just a small thought that came to me today, and was wondering what you thought about it. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, blessings to you & yours. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:02, 2 December 2012 (EST)
:Apologies for an extra edit; one more thought please. I just looked at our Guidelines and it currently states this:
Member Accounts
''As a sign of good faith and accountability it is recommended that editors select a user name based on a permutation of their real name. Whenever this would cause confusion, a name based upon a hobby or characteristic would also be acceptable.''
Perhaps we should revise either our policy to conform to guidelines or guidelines to conform to actuality. Thanks again, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:08, 2 December 2012 (EST)
:Taj, you make excellent points, and your own edits are much appreciated.  Perhaps a few blocks have been too hasty, as you say.  But in defense of User:Dvergne, he's been doing many appropriate blocks and I think he was probably also correct in blocking "LordByron".  The probability is very, very small that a real LordByron established that account, given how few "Lords" there are, and how advanced most are in age (and thus unlikely to be internet savvy).  It is far more likely that someone who was not a Lord Byron picked that name, which would thereby warrant an immediate block.
:But thanks for your comments and I'd be happy to look at any suggested rewording of the rules.  User names other than real first names and last initials are allowed when the editor makes substantive, legitimate edits, but I'd rather not try to formalize that practice in the actual rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 2 December 2012 (EST)
::Ok, I understand. Thank you for the reply. I didn't really think that user was a Lord, I just thought perhaps the name would have been ok. But I understand that it is preferred to have real names. Best Wishes, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 19:39, 2 December 2012 (EST)
:::I don't have a firm view one way or the other about the policy.  However perhaps a gentle reminder to blockers to not jump the gun might be in order.  Today I had to unblock an editor who signed up as JBerttram42 who had been blocked under the username policy.  There is no way of knowing whether this editor had good intentions for the site or not, but almost certainly if he was a good faith user he won't be back.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:51, 3 December 2012 (EST)
Andy, please change Template:University to {{{expense}}}/yr 
Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:09, 2 December 2012 (EST)
:Good suggestion.  I think I added it correctly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:28, 2 December 2012 (EST)
== Use of the ethird person in the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] ==
Aschlafly, you are claiming that in the ''[[Epistle to the Hebrews]]'' Jesus Christ is speaking about himself in the third person. That wouldn't be unheard of, we find this often in classical literature. E.g., when we read
:{{cquote|Caesar saw the horse.}}
it could well be that Caesar was the author of this sentence. But what's about
:{{cquote|Caesar saw me.}}
Here it is obvious that Caesar is not the author, as we have an instance of the first person (''me''). The same holds true for the ''Epistle to the Hebrews''. One example is Hebrews 3:6
Χριστὸς δὲ ὡς υἱὸς ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ· οὗ οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς ἐάνπερ τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ τὸ καύχημα τῆς ἐλπίδος μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν κατάσχωμεν
Reading this, you see that Christ is set over the house, while ''we'' (including the author!) are the house. If you study the epistle diligently, you will find many such examples.
And please, address the points in the section [[Talk:Epistle to the Hebrews#"one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated_it"]]! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:58, 3 December 2012 (EST)
:Aschlafly, until you have  answered to this point, I remove the phrase "'', and one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it''" from the introduction of [[Epistle to the Hebrews]]. However, I keep in the sentence ''"Andrew Schlafly, founder of [[Conservapedia]], proposes the possibility that Jesus Christ Himself was the author of this epistle (see [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]])''" from the section [[Epistle to the Hebrews#Author]] --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:48, 4 December 2012 (EST)
::Aschlafly, given your apparent aversion against the phrase "''I was wrong''" and your general shyness when it comes to replying to my comments on this encyclopedia, it is hard to tell whether you have abandoned your claim "''one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it''" or just lost interest in the whole thing.
::But if you don't address the points made on the talk-page [[Talk:Epistle to the Hebrews]], I'll remove the sentence  ''"Andrew Schlafly, founder of [[Conservapedia]], proposes the possibility that Jesus Christ Himself was the author of this epistle (see [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]])''" from the article, too. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:35, 6 December 2012 (EST)
== Semantic HTML markup ==
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
After seeing [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1021930 this edit], I noticed that you used the &lt;br&gt; tag.  It's a good idea to use semantic markup where possible so that different users can understand how to format the articles appropriately for various devices.  In this particular case, leaving a blank line will cause MediaWiki to crate a new paragraph, which is probably what you were intending.  I can go ahead and fix these issues on other pages too.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:22, 3 December 2012 (EST)
==Protected Pages==
Pretty much every important page on Conservapedia can only be edited by administrators now (as far as I can tell). While I understand the importance of protecting articles, I do not see why debate topics are also protected. Debate pages should be open to everyone and all opinions. [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 07:54, 4 December 2012 (EST)
Just a friendly note, I added two new requests to [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. Thanks. --[[User:Qw|Qw]], 4 December 2012
== "Repent of this Athiesm" ==
"Repent of this atheism" on the main page should either be "repent for this atheism" or "rid himself of this atheism." You "repent for" something, you don't "repent of" it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:02, 7 December 2012 (EST)
== Is it just a temporary loss of interest... ==
... or have you discarded your insight that ''one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated'' the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]]? An answer to this question could save me [[Mystery:Did_Jesus_Write_the_Epistle_to_the_Hebrews%3F#Rebuttals_in_detail|some work...]] --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:17, 9 December 2012 (EST)
So, you haven't discarded the insight. Then I'm waiting for you to address the points above, i.e.,
{|class="wikitable" style="background:pink"
Aschlafly, you are claiming that in the ''[[Epistle to the Hebrews]]'' Jesus Christ is speaking about himself in the third person. That wouldn't be unheard of, we find this often in classical literature. E.g., when we read
:{{cquote|Caesar saw the horse.}}
it could well be that Caesar was the author of this sentence. But what's about
:{{cquote|Caesar saw me.}}
Here it is obvious that Caesar is not the author, as we have an instance of the first person (''me''). The same holds true for the ''Epistle to the Hebrews''. One example is Hebrews 3:6
Χριστὸς δὲ ὡς υἱὸς ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ· οὗ οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς ἐάνπερ τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ τὸ καύχημα τῆς ἐλπίδος μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν κατάσχωμεν
Reading this, you see that Christ is set over the house, while ''we'' (including the author!) are the house. If you study the epistle diligently, you will find many such examples.
And please, address the points in the section [[Talk:Epistle to the Hebrews#"one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated_it"]]!
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:43, 10 December 2012 (EST)
== ACLU attacking same-sex education... ==
I'd be very curious to hear your informed legal opinion on the following case, as it seems to fall very much within your area of expertise. 
Hope you're well this Christmas season.
--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:52, 10 December 2012 (EST)
:The ACLU has repeatedly opposed single-gender classes in public school, even though many schools and parents agree they work better.  Thanks for linking to the above story, where the ACLU is complaining to the Department of Education, which creates a bit of a political issue for the Obama Administration.  There are lots more of these single-gender schools than liberals want to admit - and they work well.  I think there are even entire single-gender public schools now!
:I am interested in these cases and I doubt the ACLU will win this issue in the long run. Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:33, 10 December 2012 (EST)
== "Play in a State with so Much Liberal Mediocrity" ==
Technically, Tebow plays in New Jersey, home of Governor [[Chris Christie]], who is neither mediocre nor a liberal. But I can't figure out how to rephrase it so it's factually accurate and not awkward-sounding, so unless you can do so, I'd just leave it that way on the main page. Nobody thinks of the Jets as being from New Jersey anyway. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:58, 12 December 2012 (EST)
:NJ voted for Obama in 2008/2012 and Obama is very liberal and more liberal than the RINO Mitt Romney.
:Tea Party people and many other conservatives don't think Christie is a conservative.[http://www.conunderground.com/six-reasons-why-chris-christies-is-a-liberal-in-republican-drag/][http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/06/01/chris-christie-exposes-his-right-flank-on-global-warming/][http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/09/chris_christie_flaws.html]
:The team's fans are primarily in the New York metropolitan area which includes parts of NY/NJ. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:37, 12 December 2012 (EST)
== Email ==
Has the "Email this user" feature been disabled? I'm a bit rusty, but I can't seem to find it on any user pages. I also can't edit my email address under my preferences, which has changed since I was last here (finally jumped from hotmail to gmail). -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 14:26, 14 December 2012 (EST)
:The email feature is disabled.  It could return at some point.  Sorry for any inconvenience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 14 December 2012 (EST)
::No inconvenience, just curiosity. Thanks. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 16:02, 14 December 2012 (EST)
== Selective information ==
It is known the killer was homeschooled. If you want to censor that it's your encyclopedia and I've deferred to you before. But it is known he was homeschooled. [http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/adam-lanzas-mom-pulled-school-relative/story?id=17985433 Here is a source from a family relative saying the mother pulled her son out of public school because she was unhappy with the public school's plan for her son]. If you want to leave it out because it's awkward for you then fine.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 15:41, 16 December 2012 (EST)
:The cited source is not enough support for the claim.  Was this merely a dispute with the school district that lasted only a few days, or a few weeks?  There is much greater evidence that Adam Lanza attended public high school, with an entry for him in the graduation yearbook.
:No other homeschooler has corroborated the claim that Adam Lanza was homeschooled.  Perhaps his mom thought about homeschooling him, and tried homeschooling briefly, but apparently she opted for public school instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 16 December 2012 (EST)
::Even if he was homeschooled for a brief period of time - he was homeschooled. In a true encyclopedia you don't leave out information so you can conveniently avoid discussion; you either mention the controversy or find a factually correct way around it (which would be listing both - since both are true). Mentioning that his mom considered homeschooling but chose public schools does not present the reality that he was - PERHAPS for a brief period of time but certainly for a time period - home schooled.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 15:53, 16 December 2012 (EST)
:::No, merely pulling a child out of public school because of a dispute with the school is not "homeschooling".  It's called keeping the kid at home in protest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 16 December 2012 (EST)
::::Iduan, you are a good editor, but in this case I think you are wrong. I agree with ASchlafly, I don't think Adam Lanza can properly be termed "home schooled". Home schooling involves set lesson plans, a consistent progress evaluation, and a home teacher or parent who has a great interest in or background in childhood education and willingness to devote a lot of time for this. As the facts stand, we know that Lanza's mother removed him from public school due to a dispute with the school, it wasn't a predetermined plan for homeschooling, and we have no information on what type of schooling he received at home. In any case, this situation is an anomaly, a very unusual occurance, in that this young man was already known to have behavioral issues and personality problems. He is not typical of, or representative of, most home schooled children. (I looked up info and statistics on this, that's how I came to this conclusion). It would be accurate to say his mother removed him from public school at some point, but it just doesn't seem right to say he was "home schooled". In my opinion. Thanks, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:32, 16 December 2012 (EST)
== Personal Honeypot ==
I've set up a honeypot wiki, to track and monitor wiki spammers. If you want, I can give you checkuser priviledges there, so you can partake in the experiment/project yourself. [http://riverside.iwebs.ws/wiki/index.php/Spamlist Url], if you are interested. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:27, 17 December 2012 (EST)
== Merry Christmas! ==
As I will be spending the next few days offline with family, a very merry Christmas to you and your family, sir.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:12, 23 December 2012 (EST)
:And Merry Christmss to you and your family, Ben!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:15, 23 December 2012 (EST)
Your most recent counterexample to relativity (#48, about a black hole "firewall") is really fascinating.  I had never heard about that idea, or about the "AMPS" (Almheiri, Polchinski, Marolf and Sully) hypothesis in general, though I knew about strange goings-on within the Planck distance from the event horizon.  I have a lot of reading to catch up on, and will try to get back in a couple of days.
Santa may find me asleep, slumped in my chair with a book in my hand.  I'll try to leave at least a few cookies for him, but there's no guarantee.  Late-night physics reading creates a strong craving for chocolate chips.....
Merry Christmas.  [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 19:12, 23 December 2012 (EST)
:Was I late :| ? Merry Christmas, Mr. Schlafly! [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:40, 24 December 2012 (EST)
== Frohe Weihnacht! ==
Merry Christmas from Germany! BTW, I'd appreciate if the ''further review'' of my [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive54#Further_Review|blocking rights]] could be finished this year. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:23, 23 December 2012 (EST)
:I hope that you will find time in the remaining days of this year to right this little wrong. Thank you! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:39, 26 December 2012 (EST)
::Merry Christmas!  And may Jesus's own writing in His [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] guide and inspire us in 2013!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 26 December 2012 (EST)
<br clear="all">
:::*I'm pleased that the ''further review'' is now finished: the restoration of my blocking rights is the vindication I've been looking for over the last months. Thank you very much, that was a nice Christmas surprise!
:::*''Jesus's own writing'' Well, that is still only your personal opinion, and I'm looking forward to your arguments at [[Mystery:Did_Jesus_Write_the_Epistle_to_the_Hebrews%3F#Rebuttals_in_detail]]! But when I'm praying  [[The Lord's Prayer]] over the next days - the one we ''know'' that Jesus personally taught us - I'll include you in my thoughts.
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:30, 27 December 2012 (EST)
== Early voting and voter ID ==
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
I know you are interested in early voting, so I finished my analysis of early voting and voter ID in the strict photo voter ID states.  You can find it at [[User:GregG/Early voting and voter ID]].  Merry Christmas, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:28, 24 December 2012 (EST)
I am troubled by biographical articles that do not name the individual nor supply reliable secondary sources about the individual.  Today an article was created on [[Djw0071]], but there are no real sources and the article was immediately protected.  We have no way of knowing whether this person exists (or whether this person is a close friend of the person that wrote the article.)  Absent reliable sources and the give-and-take of the editorial process, I respectfully question whether such an article complies with CP policy. Do you feel that the page should be protected from editing? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 02:14, 27 December 2012 (EST)
:I fail to see the points in your argument as [[Djw0071]] clearly exists as they have a youtube channel that has a nice selection of quite informative videos. The page locking is a bit annoying as I can see a few grammatical errors.` [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 02:49, 27 December 2012 (EST)
::I would be equally concerned whether it was appropriate for an encyclopedia to have articles in its mainspace about virtually unknown and irrelevant people on Youtube.  The guy has 30 subscribers, and his 15 or so videos have only been viewed a total of 10,700 times, in the 4 years he has been on Youtube.  This makes him a complete unknown and not notable in the least.  There simply shouldn't be an article on anyone at Conservapedia unless they are even marginally significant.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:50, 27 December 2012 (EST)
::: Those numbers do seem a bit low, however there is evidence that Creationist channels are not treated as equally as say Evolutionist channels on youtube. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 02:55, 27 December 2012 (EST)
::::I don't believe that for a second but however.  If you look at his videos, they are actually of pretty average quality.  "Cat farting" is unlikely to get many views nor is a spectacularly banal point he makes about something Obiwan Kenobi says compared to Yoda, or a rant about hotdogs.  It seems pretty clear to me that there is a bit of a quid pro quo going on here here; the owner/operator of the ''Question Evolution!'' has agreed to advertise Djw's channel in return for Djw giving that blog a plug in a video.  That seems fair enough to me, and I encourage both parties to proceed with the best of luck, however it is NOT something that Conservapedia should be involved with.  The mainspace of Conservapdia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium for various blogs.  The community will be looking to Aschlafly to provide leadership on this issue.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:19, 27 December 2012 (EST)
:::::I have to agree that it was poor judgment to create [[Djw0071]].  The four "sources" provided are all links to the same anonymous blog, of which only two distinct pages are cited.  And, as someone with a YouTube account (albeit one that has not had any new videos uploaded in about 3 years), I can assure you that, on statistics alone (which are about the same as mine), the channel is nowhere close to being notable.  I don't see why non-notable people on the Internet have articles while this encyclopedia still lacks information on very notable people.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:01, 27 December 2012 (EST)
We all know that [[Djw0071]] is poised to be a rising star in young earth creationism. Evolutionists, let's stop pretending otherwise. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 29 December 2012 (EST)
: Well then when he starts rising, we can recreate the article. As I recall, deleted articles aren't permanently erased - they can still be accessed and restored by sysops. He may very well be "poised to be a rising star" but he's not a "rising star" yet, as the numbers clearly demonstrate. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:53, 20 January 2013 (EST)
::Judging by his body of work on YouTube, this has less to do with "young earth creationism" than it does "young YouTube video creator." Could the article please state his name and age?  Is he a close relative of a CP editor? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:02, 20 January 2013 (EST)
== Merry Christmas ==
And a Merry Christmas to you too! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:01, 27 December 2012 (EST)
==Overzealous blocking==
Aschlafy, please have a look [[User_talk:Dvergne#A_question_about_blocking_-_please_do_enlighten_me...|here]] (or, if it the section gets deleted, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dvergne&diff=1025462&oldid=1024821 here]). --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 23:51, 27 December 2012 (EST)
== vandal spree ==
By the time you read this (and probably revert to my version :-), you will see that there's been some bad goings on.  Isn't there a policy that someone with blocking powers should be "on duty" at all times?  Isn't that why editing is shut down overnight?  Never mind.  AlanE just stepped up.  [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 22:02, 29 December 2012 (EST)
== SkipCaptcha and reverting ==
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
Pardon my thinking aloud, but I think it should be possible to not prompt for a CAPTCHA when reverting an article to a previous revision.  I'll take a look on MediaWiki to see if there is a way to add this feature.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:47, 29 December 2012 (EST)
:Someone has already requested such a feature [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?component=ConfirmEdit+%28CAPTCHA+extension%29&resolution=---], but it hasn't had any activity since June 2011.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:58, 29 December 2012 (EST)
:Good suggestion - perhaps someone will add that feature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 29 December 2012 (EST)
== Thanks ==
Thanks Aschlafly for the clean up of the mass vandalism by Germanottaparamore, which included my talk page and many others, as well. Cheers, --[[User:JohnJustice|JohnJustice]] 11:19, 31 December 2012 (EST)
== Hello ==
My name is Cole and I need help. I recently made an article about a website that harasses Conservapedia and its users. It was deleted. So I decided to go to Ed Poor for help.
This is what I said and stand by:
Im new here and need some help. I figured I would go to you since you seem very involved in the community. I recently tried to instate an article about R*tional Wiki and suddenly it was deleted. I thought since we had an article about Wikipedia that we could write about wikis. I also noticed that it had been deleted several times by the same people. Why? The words are spam filtered to. I feel that we need to write about the faults and propaganda of this completely biased website. Not to mention they completely badmouth you in the most rude ways. Please help...
To which he responded:
If you want to write about a website which slanders us, please contact User:Aschlafly for permission.
So I did and would like to know your opinion on the matter. Thank you--[[User:Colesmithsayshi|Colesmithsayshi]] 16:04, 31 December 2012 (EST)
== I would like to request some changes to the [[Video game]] article ==
I recently spoke with [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Dvergne#I_respectfully_request_to_know_why_my_edit_to_the_Video_game_article_was_reverted another editor] concerning some edits to the video game article I considered erroneous and in some cases, spurious, and he suggested I refer my concerns to you.
The full list of most of my concerns can be found [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Video_game#Several_of_the_claims_in_this_article_are_extremely_spurious on the talk page for the article], but there was a claim you added that I did find a reference for, specifically, the one about how video games have contributed to the dropout rate of colleges:
The page referenced here is from 2008, but it does reinforce an assertion I initially removed that I originally found groundless. Still, I believe it would be wise to have a more contemporary source for this assertion, as it was one of the few articles I could find that defended that assertion.
For example, these articles cite other causes that have been consistently cited and verified elsewhere:
However, I have to confess to taking issue with the removal of the statement about games contributing to the development of critical thinking, which I know is not true as a gamer, and these articles can easily reinforce that point as valid:
For these reasons, I believe that article needs the part about critical thinking restored, and the part you added about drop out rates should probably be added farther down the page around the part where the article discusses the social impact of gaming (for good and ill).
[[User:PatrickMarion|PatrickMarion]] 08:46, 3 January 2013 (EST)PatrickMarion
== I have no desire to contribute anything further to this website ==
I consider myself myself a Christian, I try believe the Bible is word of God, and I try not to sin against my fellow man, and I do think abortion and homosexuality have no moral standing in the eyes of God, and that he sent his son Jesus (who was God in human form) as our redemption and the Holy Spirit as a guide to that redemption.
At the same time, I believe in the God who redeems the sinful and hates the sin but not the sinner, a God who was stern but willing to show love for his enemies, even willing to die on a Cross for his enemies, friends, and even those who did not know him so that all may have everlasting life, and I believe in the God who showed kindness to not only prostitutes and tax collectors, but also to the very Pharisees who would eventually put him on the Cross, wishing to forgive them for the sheer gravity of the sin they didn't realize they were committing as he died there.
With that said, I must confess I heard a lot of bad press about Conservapedia before coming here, and I decided to follow the example of that tolerant, loving God, and I decided to ignore the scorn and derision of its critics, so I registered an account to post here, because while it did seem a little farther to the right than I anticipated, I did appreciate the idea of a conservative oriented wiki project, so I decided to contribute.
At first, I was frustrated by the general disorganization of the site and limited rights I had as an editor, but considered the frequent vandalism I seen that had to be undone, I understood the reasons for those limits and decided to contribute as best I could in helping improve the site quality.
I was aware that many parodists and trolls had infiltrated the site and had corrupted articles, and when I read over the articles accusing Obama of being a Muslim without any real proof that would withstand the scrutiny of a court of law (which, as I understand, would be an anathema to you, Mr. Schlafly, as you are a lawyer), I decided to investigate those sources to see if they had any basis to them.
Before I continue, I do not believe Obama has been an effective President of America nor an effective political leader, and I don't entirely believe his stated faith and his public morality matched up, but even Christians can fall away from the word of God, and unless there was solid proof of his being a Muslim, I will not accuse anyone of something I cannot prove, just as Jesus refused to accuse the Pharisees of things he could not prove, And besides, freedom of religious expression is an integral constitutional right, and even if Obama were a Muslim, that is completely immaterial to me as long as it does not infringe on my right to be a Christian.
As for those sources, I investigated many of them, and many of those sources were not only conservatively biased (this is an educational resource with a conservative focus, so that is not entirely bad), but some were clearly wrong, such as the oath of office not taking place on a bible (that's tradition, not law) being proof Obama was a Muslim, the point about Obama's middle name (even if he were a Muslim, even Muslim tradition would have no objection to his middle name, and US law would not require his name be changed for any reason), and most disgusting of all, the fact a Youtube video produced a religious bigot who equated Nazism with Islam accused Obama of mocking the Bible (I found the Original broadcast of the excerpted comments, and they were taken out of context) was clearly nothing but anti-Muslim hatred.
For the record, the reason I take issue with anti-Muslim hatred is this: '''they worship the same God as do Christians and Jews''', so even if Obama were still Muslim, he still believes in the same God as you or I do, and he hasn't infringed on our rights to worship that God in any way, so the focus on his religion and why he must be a Muslim sounded more than a little paranoid. Besides, while John F. Kennedy was a Catholic, I would no more hold that against him than I would Obama being a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Shinto, Scientologist or even an agnostic or atheist, since the Constitution guarantees the ''right'' to believe anything you want, and while his public morality and political career seems like relevant targets of a conservative wiki, I found it frankly ridiculous and more than a little suspect about the focus on how Obama HAD TO BE a Muslim since quit I posting the day before this message.
When I finally decided to check back in, not only were the words other editors who also had reasonable doubts ignored (despite being legitimate), but I found this:
[[Mystery:Why Do Some Oppose the Likelihood that Obama Is Muslim?]]
It wasn't even an extension of the religion debate, it was basically asking why anyone would doubt your own assertion Obama was a Muslim, and coupled with a reversal of almost every single reasonable doubt on the topic, I can only conclude your mind has already been made up that Obama is a Muslim, and while I don't understand your motives for this nor why the opinions of those who are clearly bigoted are allowed to stand as if they were as legitimate fact, I can only further conclude this wiki is little more than a vehicle for bigotry, intolerance, and hatred, just as was asserted in another wiki that criticizes this one and even a blog by a former administrator, and if that's the case, I want to be be permanently blocked as an editor from this wiki, as I want no more association with it, just as Jesus wished the temple of God to have no more association with moneychangers.
I bear you nor anyone else here any malice or ill will, Mr. Schlafly, but if this website is a representation of what true conservatives are like, then by its standards I'm a liberal. If this place is a representation of what followers of Christ believe, then by its standards I'm a heretic. And finally, if you want to know what I think a Christian is, then here it is in a sentence:
'''This user is a Christian, and remembers that Jesus preached tolerance and love, not homophobia and hate.'''
[[User:PatrickMarion|PatrickMarion]] 08:52, 4 January 2013 (EST)PatrickMarion
:Patrick, I don't have time right now to read your lengthy posting.  Whether Obama is a Muslim is matter of historical and political interest, and discussions about it are appropriate and enlightening.  There is nothing anti-Muslim about it.  Quite the contrary, it is important to give credit where it is due.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:51, 4 January 2013 (EST)
== Can I respectfully suggest ==
That you consider whether Dvergne is the sort of person that should have blocking privileges here.  He maliciously and without sufficient cause blocked me for an hour.  Despite me being able to unblock myself I was unable to edit.  His stated reason was that I had blocked a user named Funforever for breach of the name policy whilst in the middle of a bit of a swarm of spammers.  If a mistake was made by me, I would hope that people entrusted with block powers would have the maturity to leave a comment on my talkpage, and not just deliberately seek to inflame the situation. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:58, 6 January 2013 (EST)
: It seems this incident was a misunderstanding and the user has recreated their account (however it normally directly says so) [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 23:03, 6 January 2013 (EST)
::Dvergne was right about the unjustified block of "Funforever", who had done many legitimate edits.  It seems this was a misunderstanding that has been cleared up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 6 January 2013 (EST)
:::Was he right to just block me though.  Don't you think a quick note to me might have been a more mature and appropriate response?  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:09, 6 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::No! There is something buiLding here. A "mitteleuropa"-type pre- or neo-nazi thing happening. Andy - shut it down![[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:23, 6 January 2013 (EST)
== English names for foreign cities ==
Could you please take a look [[Talk:Kraków#Names of non-English cities|here]]? Thanks. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:28, 7 January 2013 (EST)
== Upload request ==
I have an image I'd like to upload and insert in the article [[George Bernard Shaw]]. Can you tell me how to proceed? [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 16:11, 10 January 2013 (EST)
:Please email a link to the image to conservapedia@zoho.com.  Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 10 January 2013 (EST)
::Thanks. I have sent the e-mail. [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 09:04, 20 January 2013 (EST)
:::I checked, but don't see the email.  Do you have a link you could post here?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 20 January 2013 (EST)
::::The image is available through a link at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70810FA3C5513738DDDA90994DA415B838FF1D3 but only for a fee. I attached a copy of the image itself to the e-mail. That attachment may have triggered your spam filter. Did you check your spam or junk folders? The e-mail was sent successfully on 19 Jan 2013. It is titled "upload request." [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 07:10, 22 January 2013 (EST)
:::::Is the photo "[[public domain]]"?  It doesn't sound like it, but perhaps it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 22 January 2013 (EST)
::::::It's not actually a photo. It's a screen grab of a New York Times headline and portion of an article from 1933. The article won't be public domain for another 10 years, but a lo-res screen grab of a portion showing the headline should fall under fair use. [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 13:55, 22 January 2013 (EST)
::::::I have now posted the image at https://picasaweb.google.com/115133402497951659829/DropBox?authkey=Gv1sRgCNXN756osv7A9QE#5836358342878826354
==Spending authority vs Backdoor spending authority==
There seems to be a dispute brewing over a redirect from [[spending authority]] to [[backdoor spending authority]]. The [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpending_Authority&action=historysubmit&diff=1028587&oldid=1028586 terms are identical in meaning], and according to a former Rules Committee Chairwoman "spending authority" is merely the technical term for "backdoor authority". Can the Spending authority page be protected after a Redirect, or is there a process to resolve such an issues?  Thanks.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 20:26, 10 January 2013 (EST)
:Protected as requested.  Thanks.  Please let me know if you recommend further protection concerning this issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:31, 10 January 2013 (EST)
::Thanks. Probably need a Move or Redirect protect at '''[[Spending Authority]]'''' cause that's where the main dispute is at.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 20:52, 10 January 2013 (EST)
:::Good suggestion.  I just protected it also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:30, 10 January 2013 (EST)
::::Ok, thanks. Now I just need [[backdoor spending authority]] ''unprotected'' so I can continue editing. Also, I think the editor who thinks [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Spending_Authority&diff=prev&oldid=1028562 "backdoor" has a negative connotation] is knowledgeable and capable of making positive contributions to the article. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 21:48, 10 January 2013 (EST)
:::::The entry is unlocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 10 January 2013 (EST)
Andy, with all due respect, I find serious problems with OscarO's editing, including the verbatim lifting of text from [http://democrats.rules.house.gov/archives/glossary_fbp.htm Louise Slaughter's website] without proper attribution.  I thought that Slaughter was a liberal Democrat.  Spending authority is a well defined term.  "Backdoor spending authority" appears to reflect the jaded views of her committee staff.  Conservatives favor user fees, privatization and public-private partnerships as an alternative to "tax and spend."  Committee staff would smear those advances (which worked under Thatcher in the UK) as "backdoor" and seek to control everything through a centralized appropriation process instead of placing certain projects and services into their own financial "boat."  The Spending Authority was reliably edited by conservatives from 2007 thru 2008 and remained in place until OscarO tried to redirect it to his Democrat-inspired "backdoor spending authority" article.  I believe the redirect should be removed and the 2008 version of the article restored. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:56, 10 January 2013 (EST)
:OscarO has extended an olive branch which I accept.  We discuss whether the redirect should stay or go. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:52, 11 January 2013 (EST)
::Backdoor spending is spending on auto-pilot. Elected Congresspersons can't even control it. Only 31% of the budget is [[discretionary spending]] which they do control. But if the Senate under Reid refuses to pass a budget, or do appropriations (as mandated by law), the only control mechanism left that the peoples elected representatives have is the [[debt ceiling]].  The fact unprecedented, unsustainable deficits and accumulated [[national debt]], destroying jobs and the US economy, is the result of [[backdoor spending]] is something conservatives very much are interested and would like to learn about it more detail. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 12:39, 11 January 2013 (EST)
:::If OscarO intends for "backdoor spending authority" to have a negative connotation, then it is something different from "spending authority". So, the article that was last edited in 2008 should be restored, and kept separate from the new article that he wrote yesterday.  Again, the fact that only 31% of the budget is [[discretionary spending]] may be a good thing.  Some people advocate ending most non-defense discretionary spending.  Many conservatives favor toll roads, user fees, public-private partnership and privatization over "tax and spend" centralized control.  All of these approaches involve decision-making, not "spending on auto-pilot." If the appropriations committees (and Congress as a whole) have less power and control of the economy, conservatives would claim a victory. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:57, 11 January 2013 (EST)
:::On the separate issue as to whether the Senate has written and passed appropriation bills, the Senate has done its usual work on appropriation bills, but in some cases, they are blocked from coming to the floor by a Senate Republican filibuster. Reid tried to roll them up into a single, government-wide appropriation bill, but that also drew a filibuster.  So, generally speaking, during the past few years Congress has only been able to appropriate funds in the form of continuing resolutions generally based on a percentage of prior year's spending.  The funds are being appropriated at least through March 2013.  Work is underway for the FY 2014 budget. So, as soon as Congress resolves the rest of the FY 2013 spending debate, it will have to turn to FY 2014 and adopt appropriation bills before October 2013. We are paying 535 officials to debate and make decisions, but all of that work is replaced by McConnell and Biden meeting in secret to work out a last-minute deal.  This is not healthy, but CP should be careful to report on it as accurately as possible. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 13:17, 11 January 2013 (EST)
::::No, I don't think you've grasped the narrative that has ensued since President's Obama's first 100 days. Sen Susan Collins (R-ME) broke ranks and voted to waive the Budget Act of 1974, dispensing with the appropriations process. Under [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575123512773070080.html Slaughter House Rules], the ARRA (intended as only one year "emergency spending" stimulus) and PPACA were passed without bi-partisan consensus. With the Budget Act waived, there's no need for Senate Democrats to go through the regular Appropriations process. Senate Democrats have not passed, nor even proposed a budget in more than three years now, using [[continuing resolution]]s instead -- and keeping Obama's one year, "emergency stimulus" spending levels intact for four years. Hence $5 trillion added to the national debt without our elected Senators even being allowed to vote on appropriations.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 13:51, 11 January 2013 (EST)
:::::Respectfully, the comments just above show why "backdoor spending authority" and "spending authority" should be two separate articles.  The "spending authority" article was written in 2007 and updated in 2008.  It is accurate and objective.  "Backdoor spending authority" which was started yesterday, is turning into an opinion essay.  Let's look at the appropriation process for FY 2013. [http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app13.html THOMAS summary].  Both the House and the Senate Committee have passed most of the appropriation bills.  The full House did not pass 5 of the bills, and all of the Senate bills were filibustered and not allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote. However, the overall spending levels for FY2013 were set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 which included $1 trillion in identified cuts in addition to an across-the-board sequester that was supposed to go into effect on Jan 1, but has now been postponed to Mar 1.  Many of the appropriation bills have bipartisan support.  For example the Senate Defense Appropriation bill passed 30-0.  The Appropriations Committees are drafting bills and committee reports and spending cuts have been enacted.  Rather than using the regular order of voting on appropriation bills and resolving differences in conference committees and the budget reconciliation process, Congress is shifting from a 525-person process to a two-man negotiation: McConnell/Biden.  Continuing resolutions are a form of appropriation (although not a good one.)  I respectfully submit that OscarO is misinterpreting sources that addressed the 2009 stimulus bill and the ACA as applying to the FY2013 or FY2014 spending considerations. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 16:40, 11 January 2013 (EST)
::::::The THOMAS link supports exactly what I outlined. Read it. The only action agreed upon by both houses and signed by the president was a Supplemental. Then you have Continuing Appropriations Act (through 3/27/2013) which is not an "Act" or law and doesn't need the president's signature because it is a [[continuing  resolution]] to continue spending levels based upon the FY 2012's continuing resolution, which was based upon 2011's continuing resolution, which was based upon 2010's continuing resolution, which was based upon the last time the President proposed a budget and Senate Democrats voted on and passed a budget (when Susan Collins broke the filibuster against the vote to waived the Budget Act) in 2009.  ([http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HJ00117:@@@D&summ2=m& See Summary]).  Like wise the Budget Resolution HConRes112, which "the President does not sign", cause it's not a law, budget, or appropriation. It's just a joint resolution of both houses to continue spending at last years levels cause they can't agree on any changes to the budget and appropriations. Spending is on autopilot. And your Representative was sent there with nothing to do because he can't increase or decrease spending on anything beyond what was established in Obama's first 100 days. And in the Senate, he can't even vote on a budget cause neither the president nor Senate Democrats have even proposed a budget in 4 years, as required by the Budget Act f 1974.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 19:02, 11 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::The THOMAS link contradicts your claims. It shows that the President signed the continuing resolution (which is a form of appropriation law) on September 28, 2012. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation?page=7 also whitehouse.gov] Look at page 127 of [http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/concepts.pdf this OMB reference source] which says, "The Congress must present these CRs to the President for approval or veto."  The spending levels were NOT based on "2011's continuing resolution" because the top line numbers were set in the Budget Control Act of 2011.  It is true that budget resolutions are not laws and are not signed by the President because they are just internal instructions for the Congressional committees. A "budget resolution" is a form of "joint resolution of Congress" and nothing more.  What counts are the appropriation bill(s).  Your claim that "the president ... have even proposed a budget in 4 years" is false. E.g., [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/ 2013], [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/ 2009]. The worst that you can say is that Obama submitted the budget a few days late,[http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/18/obama-misses-budget-deadline-again/] but he definitely has submitted it each year.  After reading your comments on [[Talk:Main_Page#CBO_just_released_estimates_on_the_.22Fiscal_Cliff.22_Deal]] as well as your subsequent comments here, I am worried that you are not understanding the sources that you are citing.  Perhaps we can agree that the "spending authority" article can be restored to its 2008 content, and I will leave you alone to write whatever you want in the "backdoor spending authority" article, even if it is wrong.  I want to get along with all CP editors, but there seems to be a fundamental problem here.  Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:55, 12 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::You're right, I misspoke on the Continuing Appropriations Resolution (elsewhere called the Continuation Appropriations Act). That was the debt increase deal that set up the fiscal cliff. Continuing Appropriations don't set budget parameters, they payoff the debts the agencies run up out the backdoor ex post facto.  This is near the core of the issue: Repubs want to use Appropriations to get a handle on some forms of spending ([[discretionary spending]]); Harry Reid & the Dems use Appropriations to plug leaks authorized by executive agencies through the backdoor.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 11:35, 12 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::As to the comment, "spending levels were NOT based on "2011's continuing resolution" because the top line numbers were set in the Budget Control Act of 2011"; technically true, but in the Budget Control Act of 2011 which set up the sequester, the numbers ''were'' based upon the previous CR. No major spending or revenue changes occurred in 2011.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 11:52, 12 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Everyone agrees that there is a US fiscal problem.  We can improve the situation by CP providing accurate information. The Budget Control Act of 2011 set lower top line spending numbers and the sequestration.  The act identified a specific set of budget cuts worth $1 trillion, and provided for sequestration which would cut an additional $1.2 trillion (over 10 years.)  Your assumption about autopilot based on prior CRs is not correct.  Also, all of these cuts deal with appropriated funds (discretionary spending).  You are mistaken about "the agencies run up out the backdoor ex post facto."  Agencies operating off of non-appropriate funds such as user fees in most cases do not drive up the national debt.  However, "backdoor" is such a vague term that I am not certain which agencies you meant. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 13:23, 12 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::The Budget Control Act and sequestration were agreed upon, passed, and signed by the president; however implementation has been delayed 60 days, so even ''after'' passage and deadlines, backdoor spending on auto-pilot continues right now. And now, all cuts do not deal with just appropriated discretionary spending. The delay was due to the pain associated with cuts to [[mandatory spending|mandatory]]  [[entitlement]] spending.  Again, we're close to the nexus of dispute between Dems & Repubs, libs & conservs; conservatives believe elections and democratic representation in congress should allow for an elected member to act on spending control and deficits, but under current law, members of congress have little control over mandatory spending and deficits.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 14:31, 12 January 2013 (EST)
{outdent}With all due respect, where are you getting this information?  May I suggest that you read Bob Woodward's ''The Price of Politics'' for a detailed account of the 2011 negotiations? Read [http://rigell.house.gov/uploadedfiles/summary_of_the_budget_control_act_of_2011.pdf any summary of the Budget Control Act of 2011]: the Act set the spending levels for FY 2012 and FY 2013 '''below''' the continuing resolution level of FY 2011.  In addition, it required sequestration of an additional $1.2 trillion in mandatory savings effective January 1.  The "fiscal cliff" law found enough revenue increases and budget cuts to fund a two month delay in the sequestration.  (For example, the law cancelled the cost-of-living increase in Congressional salaries.)  These cuts are effective immediately. So, your "autopilot" claim and other statements immediately above are not true. Are you willing to join me in a request to restore the "spending authority" article as a separate page? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 19:07, 12 January 2013 (EST)
:You are correct there was some moderation in spending levels as a result of the 2010 midterms. But you're still claiming federal spending is determined by the appropriations process, and it's not; and the appropriations process pre-determines spending levels, and it does not. The appropriations process now just authorizes payment for spending that executive agencies have already have engaged in. Likewise you haven't addressed waiver of the Budget Act, which gave blank check authority to executive agencies and continues on autopilot through CR's. And allows both the president and Senate Dems to not only NOT propse a budget, but also our elected officials from voting on it. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 19:33, 12 January 2013 (EST)
::I have address that in prior comments.  Please respond to my direct question: are you willing to see the protection on "spending authority" removed and the article restored to its 2008 version? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 19:37, 12 January 2013 (EST)
:::Show us where "backdoor" authority was re-defined in subsequent legislation after the 1974 Budget Act as something other than "spending authority", and you'd have a case. But I don't think it can be found.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 19:59, 12 January 2013 (EST)
::::With all due respect, show me (with a US Code citation) where "backdoor authority" is defined in the statute. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 20:08, 12 January 2013 (EST)
:::::See Deschler's Precedents [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3/html/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3-4-5-1.htm p. 1897]; also p. 1889 and [http://books.google.com/books?id=MOYtNnn5B6oC&pg=PA705-IA5&lpg=PA705-IA5&dq=backdoor+authority+sec+401+budget+impoundment+act+1974&source=bl&ots=PhqNzeETMq&sig=Bjh5DxoqV8yIdnKvjCeYb8Ez0iI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rQnyUL-hKsjeiALf54CIBg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=backdoor%20authority%20sec%20401%20budget%20impoundment%20act%201974&f=false this ref].  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 20:59, 12 January 2013 (EST)
::::::So to sum up, the phrase is not used in the 1974 Act or any other statute, it is different from "spending authority", and you made up the term "backdoor spending authority."  What objection to you have to restoring the "spending authority" article in the form that has been on CP since 2008? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 22:16, 12 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::It's exactly as Rules Committee Chairwoman cited in the article describes, "defined in section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, '''as amended'''."  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 23:02, 12 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::We should ignore [[liberal claptrap]]. How about my proposal? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:08, 12 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Liberal claptrap added at $5 trillion to the national debt (1/3 of GDP) in just the last 4 years. don't you feel people have right to know how it was done?  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 23:23, 12 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::With all due respect, people have the right to know ''accurate'' information on the fiscal challenges.  However, you are confused about "backdoor authority" adding $5 trillion to the national debt in the last 4 years.  Trust funds and non-appropriated funds represent government spending that have separate revenue sources.  In general, they do not contribute to the budget deficit. They are funded from user fees.  (For example, when someone makes purchases at the Army base PX, money was spent to buy the merchandise, but the purchaser pays for what he buys.)  The government collecting user fees helps the budget deficit, not hurts. This is taking far too much of Andy's valuable time.  Let's resolve this by lifting the protection on "spending authority". [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:37, 12 January 2013 (EST)
ok, answer this question (which [http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002801515 even readers at the democraticunderground struggle with]): ''Why hasn't the Democratic-led Senate submitted/passed a budget in 3 years?''  Answer: because backdoor spending puts spending on auto-pilot and there's no need for a budget. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 01:32, 13 January 2013 (EST)
:I am sure you sincerely believe your answer, but it is not true.  My personal opinion (which I will leave out of the articles) is that the Senate and the House cannot agree on "special instructions" so the Senate Republicans use a filibuster threat to prevent the full Senate from debating and voting on the annual budget resolution.  The budget resolution, as you have agreed, is just a joint resolution of Congress.  It is the appropriation bills that actually count, and the Senate Republicans have filibustered those as well, even when they pass the committee on a bipartisan 30-0. You are confusing cause and effect.  The cause is politics, not the structure of spending authority.  Government is so large that Congress should focus on what is important.  The Army base restocking the PX with merchandise is not important and does not affect the budget and should be on "auto-pilot". Please don't confuse a concept with the bad results from it being possibly misapplied. Please don't confuse turf fights between the appropriations committees and the authorization committees with policy debates on the size of government. Write the article so that it is true at both the state and federal level, and if applicable the world. Now, how about lifting the protection on "spending authority"? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:23, 13 January 2013 (EST)
::Wrong. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/jack-lews-misleading-claim-about-the-senates-failure-to-pass-a-budget-resolution/2012/02/12/gIQAs11z8Q_blog.html?wprss=fact-checker The Budget cannot be filibustered]. The ''Washington Post'' Fact Checker awarded Treasury Secretary-nominee Jack Lew its top award of four Pinocchios for fibbing on this canard.  Also, while a PX operating at a loss or legislative pay raises may impact somewhere like New Zealand's operating deficit, I doubt if these items approximate .00001% of the US federal budget. It should not be too hard to check. But repeated references to such lame, miniscule, and obscure items show you haven't grasped even the broad outlines of the magnitude of the problem. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but examine the numbers, and examine the facts seriously, for a moment. Thank you.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 14:21, 13 January 2013 (EST)
:::I said that a "filibuster threat" not that they filibustered the actual [http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/parliamentary-procedurebudget resolution.] There is too much [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/senate-republican-filibuster_n_790303.html hostage taking in Congress.]  Please stop changing the subject -- what objection do you have to a straight-forward "spending authority" article.  If you want us to give credence to your undocumented personal analysis, please share with us your background and expertise? Are you a lawyer, have you worked for the federal government or are otherwise close the federal budget process? As I requested on the article talk page, please provide your sources for the claim that "tax expenditures" are within the definition of "backdoor" spending authority as they are not listed in 2 U.S.C Sec. 651. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:48, 13 January 2013 (EST)
::::Personally, I'm a veteran witness to the budget battles of the Reagan era which parallel today. Tip O'Neil controlled the House, Repubs the Senate, and neither could agree on a budget under the 1974 law. CR's were the rule. There have been many attempts at reforming the process, in 1985, then Gramm-Rudman, then the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, etc etc.; in the Gingrich-Clinton era the president used the Reagan model of effective government on the spending side but, refused tax reform. I'm disappointed the Repubs didn't take on serious spending and entitlement reform in the Bush-41 era, cause they have little to complain about now.  But its all of us who suffer because of the accumulated screw ups and abuses of the past. And actions of the executive and Senate majority today only compound the problem. Boehner & company have done nothing to build a national consensus to seriously address these issues. People need some understanding how we got into this mess.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 17:34, 13 January 2013 (EST)
Andy, it is time to reach a decision.  Is CP going to have an accurate "spending authority" article (such as the one that was written in 2007 through 2008), or are we going to conflate a civics concept that is applicable at both the state and federal levels with the undocumented personal essay written over the last few days under the term "backdoor spending authority"? If you chose the latter, I will respect your decision and refrain from further remarks. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:57, 13 January 2013 (EST)
:Andy, as they say, "The case is submitted."  You can pick out the troll and decide which editor you want here at CP. We await your decision. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 17:58, 13 January 2013 (EST)
== [[Shockofgod]] unprotection ==
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
Can you please correct the [[Talk:Shockofgod#Typos|typos]] on [[Shockofgod]] or unprotect the page so that I can do so?  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:26, 11 January 2013 (EST)
:Thanks for unprotecting the page!  I have fixed the typos pointed out on the talk page.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:19, 11 January 2013 (EST)
== [[E=mc²]] ==
A couple of days ago, I presented on this talk-page [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 an experiment for undergraduate students of natural sciences] in which  the classical Newtonian predictions for the mass and the impulse of fast-moving objects weren't applicable, but which was consistent with the predictions of the theory of Special Relativity.
You didn't tell us how this experiment is flawed, you just called it ''bizarre'' and asked me personally: ''August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula''.
Certainly you know that '''proof''' is for mathematics and whiskey only, but I stated an experiment which is performed at high-schools (or at least at German Gymnasia), and which relies in its mathematical description on Einstein's mass-energy-equivalence, i.e., [[E=mc²]]. You are somewhat familiar with this experiment, at least you started an article about it a couple of years ago: [[Compton Scattering]]
I hope that you now take your time not only to review this experiment (useful links are now added to [[Compton Scattering]]) and the ''Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory'' to which I linked above, but also provide us with your answers to [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton|a few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]].
Thank you, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:08, 13 January 2013 (EST)
== Things to fix on [[:Template:Mainpageleft]] ==
Dear Mr. Schlafly,
I just wanted to call your attention to a couple blemishes on [[:Template:Mainpageleft]] that shouldn't be too hard to fix.  If fixed, the image of our encyclopedia will be improved.
#In the first paragraph, "Conservapedia" has a dangling apostrophe after it.
#The background of the "Popular articles at Conservapedia" section is white, which differs from the pink background of the rest of MPL.
#The CSS code for the "Welcome to Conservapedia" banner that is not transcluded could be improved:
<code><nowiki><div style="-moz-border-radius-topright: 10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 10px; backgrounhttp://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.pngd: #0000ff; text-align: center; font-size: 100%; padding: 3px;"><span class="nounderlines">'''<font style="trebuchet ms" color="#ffffff">Welcome to Conservapedia!</font>'''</span></div></nowiki></code>
There is an extraneous link in the middle of the word "background", and the deprecated <code>&lt;font&gt;</code> tag is used.
Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 09:10, 15 January 2013 (EST)
:Can you please at least fix the dangling apostrophe after the word "Conservapedia"?  It looks rather unprofessional.  Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 21:01, 19 January 2013 (EST)
::Good catch.  Sorry I didn't review your suggestion earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 19 January 2013 (EST)
== Sports pages ==
Andy, there are a lot of pages for sports teams that have been added throughout the years by various users (myself included, if I'm not mistaken) which aren't kept up-to-date. I would take on the task, but given the sheer number of them and my limited time to edit, by the time I finished updating them they would need to be updated again. As opposed to plastering '''<nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki>''' tags everywhere, is there any way that someone with the ability to delete pages can just purge them? -- [[User:JLauttamus|JLauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Talk</sub>]] 08:37, 18 January 2013 (EST)
On another note, I don't see why it's necessary to have 10 stub articles on random Dancing with the Stars dancers and judges. All of the articles are one-sentence stubs that really have no relevance even if they were expanded. I hate to bombard your talk page, but I'd hate to spam templates on articles even more. -- [[User:JLauttamus|JLauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Talk</sub>]] 09:26, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:It may be easier to just remove the rosters, as those are the items that are out of date the most.  Those that are embedded as templates can just be removed from the team in question.  I am also a guilty party as it comes to the rosters.  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|<sup>Hello!</sup>]] 11:55, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::People can see when the roster was current, like baseball cards showing statistics and status of players.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 19 January 2013 (EST)
==Banning of Jwill==
On the Block log at 20:06 you will see I  blocked User:Jwill. I based it on the edit below my block. However when I went to edit that page to advise Admins of the possible need for a deletion I found it would not let me edit it. I then had to leave the house and have just returned - it's about 11:30 AM here. (One day I will learn not to start a task here without knowing I have the time to finish it.) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:40, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:No problem.  Thanks for your blocking efforts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 19 January 2013 (EST)
== Upload Requests ==
Three days ago, I added a pic to [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests]]: [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests#Compton Scattering]]. Who will do the uploading? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 19 January 2013 (EST)
:Uploaded as requested!  See [[File:Compton Scattering Diagram.png]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:18, 19 January 2013 (EST)
::Thanks! I'm looking forward to your comments on the article on [[Compton Scattering]] (and to your answers to [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:40, 20 January 2013 (EST)
== Spam ==
Hello here are two advertising articles: [[Discover How to Make Curtains Look Modern - Useful Recommendations]] and [[Villas Bali Ideas To Make Obtaining There A Breeze]]. Can you please deleate them. --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 13:13, 21 January 2013 (EST)
== Cockcroft and Walton Experiment ==
I put  my [[Talk:Cockcroft and Walton Experiment#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding this experiment|few questions regarding this experiment]] on the talk-page - I hope they will help you to explain the experiment as you intend to do. Creating and expanding the article may even show that you have the  understanding of mathematics and physics necessary to talk about such things. Unfortunately, the first version of the article was all about rhetorics and not about physics - I hope you will improve this!
Otherwise I'd have to repeat my observation: [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#Editing_the_Article|Simply put, shouting "claptrap, claptrap, claptrap" again and again doesn't make a convincing argument]].
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:13, 23 January 2013 (EST)
== Move of Revelation, etc. ==
Now would be a good time to think again about a separate namespace (CBP?)for the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]]! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:55, 23 January 2013 (EST)
:I wholeheartedly agree with AugustO's suggestion.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 10:59, 23 January 2013 (EST)
::What advantage would a separate namespace bring?  It has the disadvantage of removing the entries from ordinary searches.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:37, 23 January 2013 (EST)
::The opposite is true:
::*You can [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgNamespacesToBeSearchedDefault set the default search settings] such that the CBP is included.
::*And the reader could search the CBP separately: that's very helpful when you are looking for an expression or a word (like "ship") which occurs abundantly in the main space.
::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:39, 23 January 2013 (EST)
== Link to infantile article on MPL ==
Could you take a look at this item
{|class="wikitable" style="background:lightpink"
'''The key years before Jesus' birth'''
[http://www.lessgovisthebestgov.com/from-Caesars-death-to-Jesus-birth.html The key years before Jesus' birth]
Discussion: [[Talk:Main_Page#The_key_years_before_Jesus.27_birth|Here]]
Thanks, --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:39, 23 January 2013 (EST)
== [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)]] ==
I made a couple of edits to [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)]], adding diacritics, missing words, etc. My edits were reverted in bulk by [[User:DouglasA]]. What I find disturbing is that my revisions were deleted: I had to restore some of the material from my personal back-up!
Revisions deleted include:
I'd appreciate to get an explanation for such methods - especially in light of your statement "''Conservapedia supports free speech -- even by people we might disagree with. That's a big difference between conservatives and today's liberals''"! And I don't like to get [[User_talk:AugustO#Conservapedia_rules|<s>threads</s>]] ''hints'' like "So you're aware, reverting admins without discussion is not okay.", neither! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:44, 23 January 2013 (EST)
[[User:DouglasA]] just deleted - again - my contributions to [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)]]: http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mark_1-8_%28Translated%29&curid=95627&diff=1031281&oldid=1031125
Please, please, have a look at this mess! Thanks, --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:25, 24 January 2013 (EST)
:It is disturbing that after singlehandedly dismantling the contributions and insights of many others in that section of the CPB, you ignore admin instruction, and cannot be bothered to discuss your changes.  You are '''not''' the translation project, your opinions do '''not''' trump those of all others, and it is '''not''' the duty of the entire rest of the community to spend its time acquiescing to your gripes on every issue, from language to physics.  Since you insist on trying to dilute Conservapedia's politics and message, you should take it elsewhere. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 17:25, 24 January 2013 (EST)
== . ==
Can you please delete the article: [[National Liberation Army (Columbia)]] I have made the article [[National Liberation Army (Colombia)]]. I got a misspelling. It`s Colombia not Columbia --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 14:03, 25 January 2013 (EST)
=A Simple Request for you to promote the following petitions=
Greetings Mr. Schlafly!
I am here to request that you promote two simple petitions on your great website, Conservapedia.com. One is a request to the Farmers of the United States to have them use natural pesticides rather than toxic, artificial pesticides.
Link to petition on Change.org:
Link to a Natural Pesticide product's website:
I'm sure it would appeal to your conservative values. Conservatives value their families (And want the best for their families) and this would help American families and families all across the world who import American food be much healthier.
The second one is to request that the United States Congress, Senate, and President chose to annex Puerto Rico and help it on its path to becoming the 51st state. I believe this is relevant to you because Puerto Rico's legislature is filled with conservatives and the 51s state would help aid the conservative movement. Thank you for your cooperation.

Revision as of 09:34, 26 January 2013