Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Behaviour of Conservative (again))
(Behaviour of Conservative (again))
Line 188: Line 188:
 
::::Khalid, atheism is madness and immorality is commonly associated with atheism. When people read about topics such atheism, it is not surprising to many people to read about odd/bizarre/weird things and people committing sinful acts. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:58, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
 
::::Khalid, atheism is madness and immorality is commonly associated with atheism. When people read about topics such atheism, it is not surprising to many people to read about odd/bizarre/weird things and people committing sinful acts. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:58, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::The history of liberal opposition to my articles [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS8rpt1y6lk&feature=related reminds me of someone.] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:12, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::The history of liberal opposition to my articles [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS8rpt1y6lk&feature=related reminds me of someone.] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:12, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Just because someone has problems with your articles doesn't make them a liberal. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 21:14, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
  
 
== Andy, are you reading your Talk page? ==
 
== Andy, are you reading your Talk page? ==

Revision as of 01:14, 30 September 2011

Archive Index

Post Comments Here

Edit Policy

To Mr. Schlafly respectfully,

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

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

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

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

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

quote templates

Hi Mr. Schlafly,

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

Debate: Should Conservapedia develop a clear policy for standards for encyclopaedic and family-friendly content?

Mr Schlafly, as Conservapedia is your project a number of us would welcome your input into this debate: Debate:Should Conservapedia develop a clear policy on standards for encyclopaedic and family-friendly content?‎ Thanks. --SamCoulter 00:08, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

I found 6 pages of credible sources tying atheism/evolutionism to this aberrational and depraved behavior. Some of the best sources were from the evolutionist/atheists themselves. Ouch! By the way, I hope you found the PubMed citation and the material directly afterwords informative. Conservative 07:33, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Uploading photos

Hi Andy. I posted this question on Conservapedia's home talk page, but probably should have posted it here in the first place. I know you're busy, so when you get a chance to look into this - I'm interested in obtaining the ability to upload photos. I would use this privilege to help enhance articles on Conservapedia, and will not abuse it. DerekE 14:21, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Derek, I see you are in the US Marine Corps. I know the NAVY SEALS are not part of the US Marine Corps, but nonetheless I thought you might like these videos: US Navy SEAL Paul Tharp on Mental Toughness and US Navy SEAL David Goggins on Mental Toughness and David Goggins no limitations Conservative 04:57, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

Procrastination

Aschlafly, I understand that this project isn't the most important thing in your life, and that you have to take care of other businesses, too. That's why I don't complain (at least not to much) about the fact that after half a year you still haven't come up with a scholarly reference for translating ἰδού as "at that moment." Perhaps this is a trivial point for you - though after that much time, I'm becoming a little bit tetchy (see here.

But there are other, more urgent issues which should be addressed. And reading your talk page shows that your way of handling such matters is sometimes not so straightforward: in fact, there are many paragraphs where editors come to you with serious complains, but they don't get any answer from you (another thing where Conservapedia differs from wikipedia: take a look at Jimbo Wales's talk page at wikipedia) Sometimes, discussions evolve - or better, devolve, as there is no guarding hand.

In my experience many problems solve themselves when being ignored. But in general such a solution is less satisfying than one which could be found early on. Tackling the problems at the start is much better for the climate at the workplace, too: as I said above, being ignored makes you twitchy, and you get impolite (perhaps that's why my language at User_talk:Aschlafly#Greek_Empire was more harsh than necessary - my apologies.)

But for me, this little business about the Greek empire is somewhat urgent, and you should take care of it: I'm sure you want to avoid the impression of being too nonchalant with historical facts - a trustworthy encyclopedia has to get the basics right, otherwise no one will trust the conclusions it draws from those facts.

The other urgent matter - judging from the number of editors involved - are those disgusting entries on bestiality: if you ignore this matter you will lose the editors which are appalled by this kind of encyclopedic entries. Granted, they won't pollute your talk page with there complaints any longer. But I doubt that this solution is the best possible, so please, address this problem, too. OTOH, if you prefer to get rid of those editors, just say so, and we spare ourselves some days of bickering.

AugustO 17:11, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

A day later: It seems that you want to stress my point by keeping your silence. That's not unexpected, but nevertheless disappointing.

AugustO 17:35, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

I stated above: if you ignore this matter you will lose the editors which are appalled by this kind of encyclopedic entries. Well, take a look: User:BenP

You are cherry-picking the sections of your talk-page to which you answer. You should try to address even those sections which aren't trivial to handle! AugustO 03:15, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

"Best of the public"...?

Andy, I understand that you want Conservapedia to have contributions from "the Best of the Public", an excellent idea which will do much to help Conservapedia take its rightful place as a family-friendly on-line encyclopedia. There is a page I want to edit called "Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline" but I can't because it has been protected by Conservative. So then I found [Category:Protected pages] but this essay doesn't appear on the list. And then I found more pages which Conservative has protected to prevent other editors adding to them, in violation of your own Best of the Public principle, including CP's article on Wikipedia. Not to mention five other pages, all in the last three days.

May I respectfully suggest that you take steps to ensure that Conservative applies your excellent Best of the Public principle properly? Perhaps you can you perhaps remove protection from pages he has protected, unless they are listed on Category:Protected pages?

Thank you for your consideration. KhalidM 15:43, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

I think some people are just upset and keep vandalizing the article Atheist factions. By the way, one of my favorite essays is: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline. Is atheism in global decline? Yes. Is Christianity in global decline? No. Lastly, although some people may want their essays edited, the vast majority of the world's essays are individual endeavors. If you ask most essay writers if they want their essays to be significantly changed in character, I believe it is fair to say that most people will say no. Thus, I think authors should be able to have some discretion on whether or not they are edited. Conservative 17:41, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
You're not just protecting Essays. This is a list of mainspace articles you've protected in September alone: Atheist factions, Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments, Wikipedia on bestiality, Evolutionary belief and bestiality, Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality, Atheism and bestiality, Wikipedia, Atheism and morality, Professor values and bestiality, 2 million Question Evolution! tracts distributed goal of campaign fan, Origin of life, Britain and morality, Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to Penn Jillette and Creation Ministries International. They're all written (almost?) entirely by you and you've prevented other editors from contributing to them. Read the rubric on the edit page: "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." You are violating the principle of Best of the Public on a massive scale! KhalidM 18:14, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

I think you should relax and just face the inevitable like a man. The inoculation of people against atheism will proceed with great alacrity. Shockofgod has indicated that he is going to go "full throttle" with the Question evolution! campaign. Right now, atheism is just squeak in US society and soon it will be just a half a squeak. :) Atheism will be CUT by at least 50%.[2]Conservative 19:10, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, the issue is not whether Khalid should 'relax', or whether atheism will be defeated. The issue is that while essays and "private" pages should be locked if their author wants it, mainspace articles should not, unless they are being heavily vandalized - and even then, protection should always be limited and temporary. This is the whole point of a cooperative encyclopedia. Please realize that not all people who want to edit articles want to argue. Some just want to correct mistakes and misspellings, add information and references, improve the style or the layout, add a category or wikilinks, improve consistency, and so on.
My suggestion is, if you want an article to be locked and edited by you only, write it as an essay. If you want it to be a mainspace article, please allow everyone to edit it. Thank you.
Sincerely,
--Leo-from-France 19:21, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
I unlocked a few as they are no longer being featured on the main page. IConservative
Yet, you reprotected the Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments. Why? It's not featured on the Main Page -- as far as I can tell with ctrl+f. ~ JonG ~ 19:50, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
I confirm that Richard Dawkins' Elevatorgate comments, Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette and Britain and Morality are currently unlocked. It's a start. However, we should eventually aim for all (non-essay) articles to be unlocked. Vandals can always be blocked and reverted, but everyone should be able to contribute.
--Leo-from-France 19:56, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative: Leo-from-France has made the point for me. This encyclopedia should be a collaborative enterprise but your habit of protecting many mainspace pages take away the possibility of other people joining in that collaboration. Please would you unprotect all the mainspace pages you've protected, perhaps with the except of current featured articles. Thanks. KhalidM 15:41, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

I realize many atheists and evolutionists are upset that they cannot edit the Conservapedia atheism and evolution articles. 是故百戰百勝,非善之善者也;不戰而屈人之兵,善之善者也。 :) Conservative 17:28, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
Don't forget us fat people being upset by the "obesity and ..." articles (AKA "fat people are everything evil" articles) being locked. --SharonW 15:58, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
I really don't understand you Conservative. It is really hard to say if you are doing this only to upset everybody or because you really believe you are right... And what about the Japanese stuff?--ARamis 17:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
It's Chinese, from Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", I believe. --FrederickT3 17:39, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
故兵貴勝,不貴久。 :) Conservative 17:44, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
Is it ? I have been mistaken by the 之 and the 也--ARamis 17:50, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
Not exactly addressing the point though, is it? --LeonardS 18:04, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

Topic, noun.
A matter dealt with in a text, discourse, or conversation; a subject.
(Oxford Free Online Dictionary, Copyright © 2011 Oxford University Press.)
--Leo-from-France 18:10, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

What do you mean by "atheists and evolutionists are upset that they cannot edit..." That has no relevance to my request to edit these articles. Are the articles you've protected essays (in which case please feel free to rename them "Essay: ..." and keep them protected) or encyclopedia articles (in which case kindly unprotect them)? KhalidM 15:45, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Archive

Do you want me to archive your talkpage? It most certainly is getting a bit long.--James Wilson 20:58, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

That would be great! Thank you!--Andy Schlafly 21:13, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
Done!--James Wilson 21:22, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
I can't believe you have just allowed someone to sweep such an important issue under the carpet. I don't have an opinion one way or the other over the bestiality articles, but your refusal to make any comment, or any decision at all speaks volumes. I find it amazing that you have chosen to simply hide the evidence rather than confronting the issue head on. --DamianJohn 23:13, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
Another point. I can't seem to find the page which contains the archives to this page. Since you performed the task, perhaps you could show me where you saved it to James Wilson. --DamianJohn 23:34, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
I don't think you understand what "archive" means in this case. BrentH 23:40, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
I agree with DamianJohn on this point... I'm a bit disappointed here...--ARamis 00:26, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

Look HERE.--James Wilson 12:39, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

Inappropriate blocking

Hi Andy, I would like to bring something to your attention as site owner. I have been in private communication with User:SamCoulter over the last few weeks. There is nothing in his attitude and comments to me in private and his behaviour here on Conservapedia to suggest this user is anything but sincere. He was recently blocked for the edit here (the last edit he made - I will not link directly to it because the topics are extremely offensive and not family friendly). For this effort he was blocked for three months. His edit was a) relevant b) correct according to the article linked and c) was a link which was on the front page already. It seems that some users wanted to quote the article without implying the articles conclusions as they were at loggerheads with a users personal opinion. I don't think the user should have been blocked but now he is I won't remove it but I do believe that 3 months is extremely heavy-handed. I don't want to create controversy so I will not chnage the block myself but I am bringing this up with you and User:Karajou also (I am unable to contact the blocking sysop). Thank you. MaxFletcher 21:36, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

The blocks being handed down on SamCoulter are for deceitful reasons. If you look at his contribs there is NO VANDALISM. MaxFletcher 21:38, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
I should also point out that the link Sam was blocked over had been added to the mainpage BY THE BLOCKING SYSOP HIMSELF! Yes, still, Sam is blocked. MaxFletcher 21:41, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, I have contacted relevant parties on this matter. By the way, if you think Karajou is going to back you, I think you are kidding yourself. Conservative 21:50, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
Not so. I have communicated with SamCoulter, and you never contacted him. In fact, I doubt that you contacted other relevant parties either, because you would have had to reveal your email address in order to do so. SamHB 23:24, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
I don't want backing, i want user block to be reviewed. You know, in line with the blocking review panel YOU tried to initiate? MaxFletcher 21:52, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, is this a matter for power politics or a matter for jurisprudence? --DrDean 22:02, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
You guys are arguing over whether a sysop has the right to block a person. You're wasting your time. The offender in question was insulting user:Conservative. The offender in question has issues with Conservative and Conservapedia. The offender in question doesn't wish to come back so MYOB.--Jpatt 22:11, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

You guys are arguing over whether a sysop has the right to block a person. Oh, you have me wrong - i certainly wasn't arguing that a sysop should not block a user but I see no evidence for such a lengthy block and was asking for a review. MaxFletcher 22:14, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

How is this not my own business? A user was blocked for expressing an opinion about the appropriateness of articles on disgusting topics. If the police came and arrested your neighbor for being a conservative would that not be your own business? --DrDean 22:17, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
The offender in question doesn't wish to come back so MYOB The offender asked me personally to ask for a review/the block to be looked at so I have taken it on as my business after being asked. User does want to come back. MaxFletcher 22:19, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you've now created another saying MYOBB. The second B is for but... Go ahead, help a fellow contributor who has had it with CP -- get his block reduced. I don't see the tree producing fruit, but that is just me.--Jpatt 22:26, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
I'd help anyone who sincerely asked and my communications with Sam have been very pleasant. I'll wait and see what the senior sysops and Andy decide. Once a decision is made I'll respect that but you can't blame someone for trying to help. MaxFletcher 22:33, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
Dr. Dean, are you an evolutionist? If so, have you written to the Scientific American and asked them not to write on the topic? Or are your suggestions limited to suggestions to conservatives who cast atheism/evolution in an unfavorable light by highlighting evolutionists' folly? I did cite Scientific American as you undoubtedly recall. Conservative 04:46, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
As an aside: Very impressive editing over the last days and nights, Conservative! You don't need much sleep, I guess? I wish I had that much energy. --FrederickT3 11:16, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
I've told you before but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I consider your inability to stay on topic to be very very very rude to me. I am not an evolutionist, it wouldn't matter if I was, my problem has been and will remain the disrespectful way in which you dealt with the conflict over the disgusting articles you wrote. Scientific American to my knowledge is not a resource targeted towards children. --DrDean 16:38, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

If you had been around the time of Moses, I am sure you would have railed against him for mentioning this topic. :) Conservative 17:14, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

That is irrelevant, my concern is with how you dealt with the conflict, had you just written that article I wouldn't have said anything. --DrDean 18:43, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

I've been meaning to ask

Every so often, like, at the current moment you'll block people without an edit. It's always made me curious as to Why. --SeanS 23:06, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

This is just a guess, but I bet he's got pretty strong evidence that they are or are linked to an account or IP address that does not have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart.--MorrisF 23:19, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Image uploading privileges

I requested image uploading privileges, I believe, in mid-August. I realize you are very busy and may have forgotten, but I would appreciate it if you could find time to review my request. Thanks in advance!--James Wilson 08:16, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

I also made some [[upload requests]] so I would appreciate if you help me uploading these images or give me uploading privileges. Thanks --ARamis 16:26, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
If I were to obtain privileges, I would gladly fulfill those and any other image requests I come by, and would use them to work on some other articles in the future, and the ones I am now working on.--James Wilson 08:19, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Foreign Politics

Hi, are my contributions about French Politics useful or should I revert it ? Maybe it's none of my business but why don't you want Conservapedia to be more "globalist" ? Thanks --ARamis 16:54, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

I haven't reviewed it specifically, but as a general matter it's fine to have entries or information about French politics here.--Andy Schlafly 16:58, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia Giving Itself a Bad Reputation

Andy:

I'm sure you are aware of the enormous uproar that has been going on about the behavior of administrator "Conservative", and, in particular, his creation and promotion of utterly horrid pages. I'm sure you are also aware of the uproar relating to your unwillingness to even recognize, much less do something about, this problem. People assume that your silence may be, in part, due to the web traffic that Conservative brings, and that you think this is a constructive result.

So I earnestly ask you to consider this: I Googled articles referring to the 2012 Presidential Election. I know that this is an article that you have made many contributions to, and seem to care deeply about. But I couldn't see any hits in the first 300 items. (That's as far as I checked.) Yet, when I search for atheism+bestiality, its talk page comes up as hit #7. So this is being widely discussed across the internet. Is this the outcome you want? Do you not care about the visibility of the 2012 Presidential election article?

(Edited from a "safe" IP at a college.) SamHB 23:19, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

No answer... This is getting frustrating--ARamis 16:48, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
Standard operating procedure. Aschlafly rarely comments on broad criticisms of the project or of longtime users. When SamHB has racked off as many edits and page hits as has Conservative, then Aschlafly might find his critiques worthy of attention.--BrentH 17:02, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

If memory serves, the Bible mentions and condemns this practice 4 separate times and it does so in a non-salacious manner. For thousands of years the Bible has been taught to children with very beneficial effects. Conservapedia also condemns this practice and points out it being mentioned inapropriately by members of the immoral worldviews of atheism/evolutionism which denies the existence of God despite the abundant evidence for God's existence and Conservapedia's article does so in a non-salacious manner. The atheistic worldview has a history of mass murder (see: Atheism and mass murder and Abortion and atheism ). Question: Did Moses and God make a mistake by mentioning this practice in the Bible 4 separate times? If so, why? Also, the real issue is that the articles are further pointing out the immorality within atheism/evolutionism and Wikipedia and you don't like it, isn't it? If not, why not? Well, tough. There is no need to cater to liberal censorship in this matter. Conservative 17:48, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

So Conservapedia is better served by being known for having poorly written articles on revolting habits because they are mentioned in the Bible 4 times as opposed to being known for having scholarly articles on far weightier and relevant topics? MaxFletcher 18:02, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

We live in a new era - the Atheism and Evolutionism Whupping Era.  :) Get used to it as the whuppings are going to continue and with greater frequency and intensity. :) Conservative 18:13, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Just as I have come to expect - ignore valid points, make veiled insult (insinuating I am an "evolutionist"), make irrelevant remark. I honestly don't know how you managed to stay here when anyone would have been banned long ago. MaxFletcher 18:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you should know that you cannot expect rational answers from Conservative.--ARamis 18:17, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
Yes but I will always give him a chance to respond: Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven. MaxFletcher 18:22, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
You do realise that now articles are being made linking revolting practices to individual countries right? Are you aware of just how many articles deal with this topic and how many long-standing serious articles like liberal and wikipedia are carrying the same terminology? Please end this farcical sideshow, Andy. Isn't conservapedia your site? MaxFletcher 00:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
If you want to be technical, that depends on how much you consider this site to be a pure wiki. (Note, pure wiki is my term for a wiki that follows the basic principle of not having a single leader, it might have people given more leadership than others, but in general rule of the land is pretty much all editors; sysop, beuro, new old are on equal footing, vaguely what wikipedia would like to be)--SeanS 00:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Hello again Max. I think, whilst I agree with you and the others here, that we cannot change the behavior of User:Conservative. We should just attempt to make this wiki as best we can and choose to ignore the things we disagree with. Even though I find, and obviously a lot of you find, them hardly in the Christian spirit.Aortuso 01:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Behaviour of Conservative (again)

Andy, Contrary to the wishes of every CP editor who has posted here, Conservative has added some more disgusting articles about bestiality: Bestiality and Sweden, Bestiality and Britain and (no joking) Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality. What's more, he's protected these pages so no other editor can get rid of them. This whole stupid bestiality stunt by Conservative is making CP a complete and utter joke.

1. If I or any other editor blocks him for a short time to make him cool off, he'll simply revert the block. Will you please block him? Give him a week to get those animal images out of his head.

2. Will you please delete his disgusting pages on bestiality?

3. Will you please consider whether or not there's any point in a well-intentioned editor (like me) contributing to an encyclopedia which is just turning into a joke because of the deranged activities of an out-of-control editor who has a high level of administrator privilege? KhalidM 17:16, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

First things first...
1. You're going to successfully refute the bestiality edits posted. Either the individuals or countries cited have made claims pertaining to their support of bestiality, or they didn't.
2. You're going to explain how yourself, a recent contributor to this website, can justify the removal of a senior administrator who has been here from the beginning; this explanation is contingent on you being able to satisfy condition number 1. Karajou 17:37, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
1. These articles run contrary to the founding principles of this site in that they are utterly inappropriate for family viewing.
2. Personally I have no interest in "the removal" of User:Conservative, just some of his offensive articles.
Karajou, I urge you to move beyond a reflex defense of User:Conservative and to look at the harm being done to the reputation of this site. One of the reasons I have used Conservapedia as a reference instead of Wikipedia is that it doesn't contain references to extreme deviance. These latest articles violate that principle. RobertE 17:44, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
And what harm is that? What harm is actually being done to this website? What exactly is the harm that this website is engaging in by telling the public about a disgusting sexual practice and those who promote it? Karajou 17:50, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
I can help with number one in that Bestiality and Britain doesn't have any mention of Britian and actually pertains to a British study of Sweden and has nothing to do with Britain - hence should be deleted. Also, Atheism and bestiality again says nothing of atheists - the only connection is that Peter Singer himself is an atheist. I actually can't check any deeper as I am on a shared network and don't want these articles on the logs. MaxFletcher 17:45, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
1a. Well, I have no direct information about the claims of bestiality of course, not least because no hard, verifiable data is given in any of the articles Conservative cites.
1b. Bestiality is illegal in Britain, unlike in many US states - including some of the most conservative states such as Alabama. Would you like me to add an article about "The USA, conservatives and bestiality" just because some weirdo in Alabama might be doing it with a dog? That makes as much sense as Conservative's stupid articles about atheists and bestiality.
2. Because this senior administrator is completely out of control, making a total mockery of the website. Think about it for a microsecond - please... He clearly needs a cooling-off period to stop thinking about such weird stuff, let alone putting on a website which is supposed to be family-friendly. Some of the other senior administrators need to get a grip. KhalidM 17:52, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
You have "no direct information about the claims of bestiality", by admission, so all of this is just another attack on Conservative by whiners who cannot or will not offer anything beyong whines and rants, and this has been going on in one form or another by select individuals for years. My message is simple: it stops NOW. You're going to respect him, or you're going to leave. Period. Karajou 18:03, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
I am not going to mention Conservative but, Karajou, I would like to point out my comment above - particularly as you said the individuals or countries cited have made claims pertaining to their support of bestiality, or they didn't. The Britain article says nothing about the practice in Britain. MaxFletcher 18:12, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
If Conservative - or any other user - is wrong, then you politely say so, provide evidence to back up your claims, and then drop the subject. That is how it works here. Karajou 18:26, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
That is what I have already done I thought? The Bestiality and Britain article does not mention bestiality practices in Britain hence needs to be renamed or removed. thanks, MaxFletcher 18:29, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
Karajou, the guiding principles of the site take precedence over everything else here, except the Word of our Lord. I quote from the Conservapedia:Commandments:
"Everything you post must be true and verifiable" - people have already pointed out that "Conservative"'s study is neither of these.
"Any content you create ... must be family-friendly" - these articles clearly are not family-friendly.
In other words, these new articles by "Conservative" are in violation of two of the founding principles of this site. By your own standards, they must be deleted. I'm afraid that the onus is upon you to explain why these articles remain, in violation of the standards defined by the site's owner. RobertE 18:50, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

I think that it is very disrespectful to keep bringing this debate to Andy talk page. It is obvious that he does not want to get involved in this, and you should respect his decision. --AlejandroH 18:55, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Max, Is the Bible family friendly? What are your thoughts about these verses of the Bible: Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21 ? Conservative 20:45, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
Well, that is a slightly facetious argument. You can't compare the Bible, and the laws of God, to Conservapedia firstly and secondly Conservapedia, unlike the Bible, has an explicit Family Friendly rule. And please address the fact that Bestiality and Britain has no mention of Bestiality and Britain. Just to be clear - my quarrel isn't with you personally but at the poor scholarship. MaxFletcher 20:53, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
Khalid, atheism is madness and immorality is commonly associated with atheism. When people read about topics such atheism, it is not surprising to many people to read about odd/bizarre/weird things and people committing sinful acts. Conservative 20:58, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
The history of liberal opposition to my articles reminds me of someone. :) Conservative 21:12, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
Just because someone has problems with your articles doesn't make them a liberal. BrentH 21:14, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Andy, are you reading your Talk page?

If so, please read the section above (Behaviour of Conservative) and please take a decision on which way you want CP to go: family-friendly encyclopedia or weirdo blog. KhalidM 18:08, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

That's very black and white. When making an argument try to avoid those.--SeanS 18:16, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
Khalid, atheism is madness and immorality is commonly associated with atheism. When people read about topics such atheism, it is not surprising to many people to read about odd/bizarre/weird things and people committing sinful acts. Conservative 20:58, 29 September 2011 (EDT)