Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Atheism and obesity)
(Atheism and obesity)
Line 135: Line 135:
:::questions of personal conduct, personal character, motives, etc., are legitimate and pertinent to the issue and are not ad hominem attacks (Walton, Douglas (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press. p. 170.)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:17, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
:::questions of personal conduct, personal character, motives, etc., are legitimate and pertinent to the issue and are not ad hominem attacks (Walton, Douglas (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press. p. 170.)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:17, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::By the way, evolutionists are always whining that believers of biblical creation supposedly don't understand science. How well does [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ this man] understand [[nutritional science]] and [[exercise science]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:27, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::By the way, evolutionists are always whining that believers of biblical creation supposedly don't understand science. How well does [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ this man] understand [[nutritional science]] and [[exercise science]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:27, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
==Not worried==
A duel?  He'll probably be a know-show anyway, as he's not bright enough to tell which end of the pea shooter spits out the paper wad.  Liberals are like that!  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:05, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 21:05, 10 October 2011

Archive Index

Post Comments Here

Edit Policy

To Mr. Schlafly respectfully,

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

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

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

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

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

quote templates

Hi Mr. Schlafly,

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

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)

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 help with 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 I plan on continuing the musician articles as well as adding some history content.--James Wilson 08:19, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
I realize you may not have seen this request because of the chaos that has been going on, but I would like to know if my request will be processed. I apologize if I am being impatient. Thanks.--James Wilson 20:44, 3 October 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)

Connection problems to the site

Hi Mr. Schlafly. Is the conservapedia@zoho.com email address monitored on a regular basis? I sent you several emails at that address but haven't received a response yet. Unfortunately, I am still having a lot of trouble connecting to the site on a regular basis, as normally my connections only work for a few minutes every few days. Is there anything I could do to help you solve this problem? As I've said, I want to take part in your project and I think my edits have been at least a little helpful so far, but I am unable to do so without the ability to connect to the site. Since I am normally unable to access the site to even check talk pages, would it be possible for you to email me at the address on my user page to confirm that the zoho.com email address is receiving my messages? I know that you're quite busy, but I'm worried that others could be affected by these connection problems as well. Please let me know how I can help. I would like to get this problem resolved as soon as possible, since it has been happening every day since I created an account, independent of where I try to access the site. Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 14:17, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Hi Mr. Schlafly. Is that email address monitored? I'm still having connection problems most of the time. Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 17:25, 3 October 2011 (EDT)


Hi Mr. Schlafly. Thank you for blocking User:Cook... User:ColSharp and I tried to keep on top of the spurious edits; thankfully it wasn't too much of a problem, and we could stall him until a block was issued. Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 09:43, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Creationism page

Andy, I wanted to edit the Creationism page, to add some information from a Muslim point of view, but I can't because Conservative has protected it. Please could you unprotect it. Thanks. KhalidM 15:31, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Pages to delete

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

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

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

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

MediaWiki namespace help

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


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

Rutgers Law School debate

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

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

Explain block, please

Andy, I understand why you deleted my question about User:Conservative's health because it should really be a private matter, but I don't understand why you blocked me for raising the question [*]. My question was motivated by a sense of compassion, which is a powerful concept in Islam. We invoke the compassion and mercy of God at the start of all our religious discussions: Bismillah al-rahman al-rahim, in which rahman means compassionate. Are benevolent ideas like compassion, mercy, justice and so forth less important in Christianity than in Islam? Perhaps you can enlighten me because I believe you are an expert on the Christian religion and have even written a new translation of the Bible.

[*] We both know, I think, that your claim that I violated the permitted ratio of talk page to main page edits is incorrect, because I have recently made significant improvements to several encyclopedia pages (check my Contribs log). KhalidM 16:26, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

KhalidM, if you want to demonstrate that you are compassionate and that your "concern" was not due to malice, why don't you create some articles which help demonstrate you are a compassionate person such as: World hunger, World poverty, Doctors Without Borders, Charitable organization, Non-profit fundraising and Philanthropy. Also, generally speaking, people who create content at wikis have more influence than complainers. Conservative 17:29, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
1. My question was directed at Andy, not you. Andy was the person who blocked me and he can speak for himself.
2. I have created content here but creating any more would just be a waste of time while Andy allows you to turn this site into a laughing-stock.
3. You seem to have enormously more time for wiki-editing than I do. Why don't you create articles about subjects related to compassion instead of wasting your time on the most revolting kind of obscenity? KhalidM 19:02, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

World History Homework

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


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


I hope you and/or Karajou will unblock my account. I was blocked with no explanation. FredM2 19:43, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

I'm not psychic

(silly rant deleted)
Andy is not interested in your opinions about the site. This is a meritocracy not a rabble. --DamianJohn 18:41, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

Silly rant? Please try to keep it civil. Whether Aschlafly is interested in my opinions is not yours to decide. So, here again my comment:

Aschlafy, when you reverted an edit of mine without a comment, I had to guess your intention. Well, I guessed that it was done erroneously while reverting vandalism. So, I put it up again, stating my reasoning.

Then you blocked me for one day. Again without giving a reason. I assume that it was for reverting your deleting of my edit, but again, that's simply a guess. Personally, I don't think that I've done anything wrong, not even to warrant such a minor blog.

Perhaps you are annoyed by my repeated reminders that you still haven't provided a scholarly source for your translation of ἰδού. And you can't be pleased by the many complaints about all the articles on bestiality.

We both know that the conservative way to address such problems is not to sweep them under the carpet, but to address them forthrightly.

AugustO 12:57, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

It should by now be obvious that Andy has no intention of ever listening to whatever you have to say. Why would you continue to fill his talk page with things that you know Andy is not interested in? At some point you have to appreciate that he considers what you have to say as "silly rants". There is no doubt, knowing Andy's fairmindedness and his integrity, that if he felt you were even close to making valid points he would respond and point out your mistakes. --DamianJohn 19:35, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

Atheism and obesity

This is disgusting. If you want to criticize atheism, use reasoning, not ad hominem attacks. PZMyers 22:01, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

Crazier than Ken Ham by PZ Myers Conservative 22:05, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" - Jesus Conservative 22:06, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
questions of personal conduct, personal character, motives, etc., are legitimate and pertinent to the issue and are not ad hominem attacks (Walton, Douglas (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press. p. 170.)Conservative 22:17, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
By the way, evolutionists are always whining that believers of biblical creation supposedly don't understand science. How well does this man understand nutritional science and exercise science? Conservative 22:27, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

Not worried

A duel? He'll probably be a know-show anyway, as he's not bright enough to tell which end of the pea shooter spits out the paper wad. Liberals are like that! Karajou 23:05, 10 October 2011 (EDT)