Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
<center><b align="center" style="width: 70%; background:#FF0000;color:#FFFF00;border: 4px #800000 solid; font-size: 50px;">I need a brain</b><br><br><br>'''</center>
<center><b align="center" style="width: 70%; background:#FF0000;color:#FFFF00;border: 4px #800000 solid; font-size: 50px;">I need a brain</b><br><br><br>'''</center>

Revision as of 22:23, 25 June 2012

I need a brain

Broken HTML in MediaWiki text for permanent links

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I noticed that the permanent link feature to the most recent revision of a page on Conservapedia has text that contains broken HTML. As an example, take a look at http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=985620. The pink box reads (links omitted, text linewrapped but otherwise displayed exactly as it appears):

This is the current revision of <a href="/Talk:Main Page" title="Talk:Main Page">Talk:Main Page</a>
as edited by DavidVilla (Talk | contribs | block)  at 10:27, June 11, 2012. This
<a href="/Uniform_Resource_Locator" title="Uniform Resource Locator">URL</a> is a permanent link
to this version of this page.

The HTML tags should not appear as text in the webpage but should be functioning hyperlinks. I just wanted to point this out so that you (or the CP webmaster) can fix this issue which may confuse visitors and detract from the professionalism of this encyclopedia. Thanks, GregG 13:33, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

Category:Speedy deletion candidates

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I have added dozens of pages created during this morning's vandalism spree to this category. There are now 8 categories and 57 pages that need to be reviewed, and I think someone should delete these pages. I would do it myself (and I would have just deleted the vandalism pages outright instead of tagging them for speedy deletion while they remain on this encyclopedia with libelous titles), but I do not have the permission to delete pages. Thanks, GregG 11:35, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

Gary Johnson

Is it worth covering him more? He's polling at between 6 and 10%, numbers unseen since Ross Perot, and he's far more fiscally conservative than Romney. His views on abortion and marriage may not be conservative mainstream, but he rates extremely high on fiscal conservatism. And he's not as pro-abortion as most pro-abortionists - he outlawed late-term abortions in New Mexico and required parental notification for minors (though he says the latter is an issue for the states to decide and he would not act further on it as President). He also opposes all government funding for abortion groups. While he opposes government funding for almost everything, he considers abortion funding to be a special issue, not just lumped in with the "cut everything". At the very least, he could influence the election. He's drawing significant youth vote from Obama. Perhaps young people are getting tired of Obama and the "change" he promised, or perhaps they just want a fiscal conservative, socially liberal as they may be. Gregkochuconn 21:28, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

An Appeal for the Resurrection of the Conservative Bible Project

Mr.Schlafly, I'm writing to you to appeal for the Resurrection of the Conservative Bible Project on the Front Page of the website. It's just about the most important project the site ever embarked upon, and is exactly the type of thing that couldn't be achieved in any way other than by using internet technology - the real collaborative nature of the web allowed that project to explode for a time, and progress was very rapid. I learned so much about the Bible through it - about how translations could change the meanings of His Word over time, about history, about language, about how the Bible had been manipulated for political purposes, and so much more. It was really fascinating for a time. But for a long time now, progress has been almost nil, and I believe the main reason is that people who might come to the site never see or hear about it - despite the project being one that garnered you, and Conservapedia, a lot of attention. The activities of a noisy and troublesome 'single-agenda' user have forced the Main page 'Contribute to the Conservative Bible Project' paragraph to the very bottom of a pile of single-issuse nonsense, and the result has been practically no contributions from the Best of the Public. I urge you to consider moving the section containing the CBP appeal for contributions back to the top of the Main Page, and permanently pinning it there, and not allowing that user to move it down again. I believe it would be the best thing for this site, and for the Bible itself. Thank you for your attention. JanW 13:55, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Supreme Court cases

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I saw that you have written Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. I would suggest that an article be written on AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, which is another important case from the previous OT10 term. I might get to writing a bit on this, but if you wish to contribute, it would be a welcome addition to Conservapedia (to help counteract the mainstream media attacks on arbitration. Thanks, GregG 22:12, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Can't undo vandalism

Please undo last by MummRaTheEverLiving at Talk:Atheism and obesity. EJamesW 16:06, 23 June 2012 (EDT)

Thanks - I just reverted it.--Andy Schlafly 18:51, 23 June 2012 (EDT)

Aethelwine ( a question for Ed Poor)

@User:Ed Poor: Though this article wasn't of utmost importance (and a similar list can be found at wikipedia), what does it make non-encyclopedic? I just ask because I improved the format of this article, and checked whether the information in it was factual. I would not have bothered if I had known that it was to be deleted. Ed Poor, may I say: you have created quite a few articles with less information - so where do we draw the line between the encyclopedic and the non-encyclopedic?

(BTW, Ed Poor, could you take a look here / here? Thanks!) --AugustO 10:36, 25 June 2012 (EDT)