User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RobSmith (Talk | contribs) at 00:01, August 15, 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Post Comments Here


I just found your site and think it is wonderful. This summer my son wants to take the Micro economics CLEP test. I wanted to find a good study guide that would teach him true ecomomics lessons, rather than liberal economics. Will this prepare him to take and pass the CLEP? Are the answers posted somewhere on you site for your Final exam given. Or is there a way for him to send the exam to you and then you return graded. Is there a cost to this course? Thank you, and have a great summer.

The free courses on Conservapedia are excellent preparation for the corresponding CLEP exams, and many students who have taken these courses (including the Microeconomics one) have then passed the CLEP exam. Correct answers are frequently posted but typically not the correct exam answers; instead, I grade the exam answers that are posted.--Andy Schlafly 11:38, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

New namespace for the CBP

I'd like to share some thoughts on how to present the CBP more effectively on Conservapedia.

1. At the moment, the only way to quote from the CBP is by cut-and-paste: you have to find the verse you are looking for - e.g., John 20:2 - at the appropriate page (John 15-21 (Translated)) and insert it manually in the place: She ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other student, whom Jesus loved, and told them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have laid Him!" If the translation is improved further, each quotation has to be altered manually - if this isn't done, inconsistencies will mount up...

2. It's difficult to search for a specific phrase in the translation: if I look for Jesus and tomb, I get 62 results. There is no possibility to limit the search to the CBP, so most of the results are from other articles. And if John 20:2 is quoted somewhere via cut-and-paste, I get this as a result, too. That is not very satisfying.

To improve the situation, I'd like to have a namespace CBP to be created, where each verse of the Bible gets his own entry. Then the problems mentioned above disappear:

1. {{:CBP:John 20:2}} is an easy way to quote a verse, resulting in: Template:CBP:John 20:2. Any quotation will be updated, when CBP:John 20:2 is altered.

2. The namespace CBP can be searched together with the main namespace - or separately. The results are more meaningful, and instead of a quite imprecise result like John 15-21 (translated), you get the exact verses where the phrases occur, like CBP:John 20:2.

This concept leaves room for more improvements, some of which I tried to implement for John 20:2:

1. As said above, when typing

{{:CBP:John 20:2}}

you get the verse as a result - with a link to its page:

CBP:John 20:2

2. When you visit the verse's page, you get more information:

CBP:John 20:2

leads to

<< 2She ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other student, whom Jesus loved, and told them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have laid Him!" >>

Other Translations

KJV: Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.


Context: John 20

CBP:John 20:1 CBP:John 20:2 CBP:John 20:3 CBP:John 20:4 CBP:John 20:5 CBP:John 20:6 CBP:John 20:7 CBP:John 20:8 CBP:John 20:9 CBP:John 20:10 CBP:John 20:11 CBP:John 20:12 CBP:John 20:13 CBP:John 20:14 CBP:John 20:15 CBP:John 20:16 CBP:John 20:17 CBP:John 20:18 CBP:John 20:19 CBP:John 20:20 CBP:John 20:21 CBP:John 20:22 CBP:John 20:23CBP:John 20:24 CBP:John 20:25 CBP:John 20:26 CBP:John 20:27 CBP:John 20:28 CBP:John 20:29 CBP:John 20:30 CBP:John 20:31

This is done via the <noinclude> tag, which transcludes only the actual translated verse. In this way many other features can be added without tempering with quotations. The links on the pages allow for navigating through the project, the context section is an invitation to read further on - John 20:10-31 is missing at the moment...

At the moment, the only disadvantage of the representation is that it takes a lot of work to implement the CBP this way. And I'm afraid that User:Edbot won't be much of a help...

As the New Testaments incorporates ca. 8000 verses, at least for the Gospels such a task could be done manually.

AugustO 09:38, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

BTW: tempus fugit a quarter of a year ago I made some comments on the translation of ἰδοὺ. Two months ago, you announced that you were preparing an answer to these. Any progress? AugustO

I did eventually respond somewhere, by noting that ἰδοὺ has long been translated as "when", which is archaic for "at that moment."
Your namespace suggestion is fascinating, and I wonder if both approaches could be used: continue with CBP where it is, but create a new namespace (perhaps with links and templates) that provide the additional functionality you suggest.--Andy Schlafly 11:29, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
Your namespace suggestion is fascinating, and I wonder if both approaches could be used: continue with CBP where it is, but create a new namespace (perhaps with links and templates) that provide the additional functionality you suggest This is indeed possible - and should be the way to go: the new namespace would include only the verses, nothing else is changed for the CBP: no pages are moved, only new pages are created.
I did eventually respond somewhere, by noting that ἰδοὺ has long been translated as "when", which is archaic for "at that moment." You seem to refer to this entry from July 10, 2011:
August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [1], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--Andy Schlafly 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
Surely this isn't the review and comment which you were planning for two months?
I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --Andy Schlafly 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed here, I will take a closer look at your statement:
August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for any reference, but for a meaningful reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your google count of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on April 18, 2011:
Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious (here is bad enough. Getting me to make it blatantly obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about participation, but about contribution! --AugustO 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
Frankly, I expected your comment and review to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.
Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a meaningful reference, neither.
With one simple search... this should have been a warning: you have tried simple searches before, and you failed.
...I found that it is translated as "when"... Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as when by the NAS, the New American Standard Bible. Conservapedia states
The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.
It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.
...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular. Yep, when can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"
Summary: On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment". Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.
Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.
AugustO 09:05, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

New mystery

Mystery: Which country will make a greater move towards strong conservatism in the coming 10 years: England or the United States? Conservative

Wouldn't that question be more suited to a debate? After all, what is so mysterious about it, the way you've phrased it? Can things that have yet happen even be mysterious? TracyS 09:33, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
Deleted it. Conservative 15:25, 20 July 2011 (EDT)


A spambot that needs to be blocked and pages deleted.--JamesWilson 14:14, 20 July 2011 (EDT)


I found your site over a year ago, but I just made an account. I saw that you are teaching a World History course this fall. How and where could I sign up for this class? I'd love to take it!

Darius Bieber
July 20th, 2011

Andromeda galaxy

I know this has been contentious issue, and I've studied most of the background discussions on the talk page there. I believe I understand the point you made, It's absurd even to contemplate whether the universe would exist so far into the future, and I fully agree it is junk science designed to serve a socio-political cause. The editor, User:BMcP remains in good standing (as best I can determine), and has asked to restore some of his efforts on tthe page. I was thinking of possibly this version. I have not fully reviewed the article, and don't feel competent to judge competing claims on technical data (if competing claims on technical data do indeed exist on that page).

The origninal editor may wish to return to CP. I understand fully, and could not agree more, constant repetition of claims, such as "millions and billions of years", may be considered more as a form of indoctrination masquarading as science, as it is both factually unverified, and unveriable. Do you have any objections to the reversion or the editors return? Rob Smith 23:36, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

Just as an aside, I reverted the edits by FergusE (whom I suspect to be a parodist) because he removed the distances section. Even creationists agree on how far away things are. hence needing to find a solution for the starlight problem. Whether or not there are billions of years in our future is a different argument altogether. MaxFletcher 23:40, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
Billions of solar years, I presume you refer to. Rob Smith 23:49, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
What I mean is that Andromeda is billions of miles away however creationists (of which I am not sure if I am one or not) don't agree that means that the universe is billions of years old. Do you know what i mean? MaxFletcher 23:52, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
Not really. I gueessing the universe is probably older than the earth, it's only logical. But I (and that would include Einstein, Hawking, and Sagan) would have no way of telling, other than guess work. Rob Smith 23:57, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
I don't much time thinking about such things anyway, way over my head! MaxFletcher 23:59, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
MaxFletcher, first I don't appreciate you accusing me of being a parodist. If you have a problem with me, we can deal with it on my talk page. As for the Andromeda galaxy, there is no convincing evidence that it is millions of light years away. Furthermore, the evidence that astronomers use are based on assumptions about the age of the Earth and on relativistic effects, both of which are very convincingly debunked here. Leaving the mainstream distance to Andromeda on Conservapedia is inconsistent both with observed reality and with other scientific articles on Conservapedia. --FergusE 01:05, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
The distance of the galaxies isn't disputed by anyone, not even creationists. MaxFletcher 01:13, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
According to one of the leading creationist website there are over 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. You tell me how big you think the universe is and then explain how so many galaxies could exist within such a space without the gravitational pull tearing them, and us, apart. MaxFletcher 01:19, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
I suspect there are far more than 100 billion galaxies in the Universe. God's creation is truly infinite and breathtaking. As for the visible universe, it's about 12,000 light years in diameter. To answer your question about galaxies and gravity, I can think of a few possibilities: Perhaps there aren't as many galaxies and stars as mainstream science would have you believe, or perhaps gravity doesn't work exactly as mainstream science says it does, or perhaps God is preventing that happening to us somehow. --FergusE 01:42, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

In response to Rob's question that started this thread, I'm fine with restoring the version that he cites.

In response to the other comments above, there are flaws of logic and verifiability associated with claims of time and distance for galaxies in the universe. Assertions of time are based on untestable assumptions and should be avoided in a credible encyclopedic resource like this one. Assertion of distance are less problematic but still have weaknesses in logical rigor.--Andy Schlafly 09:13, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Discussion moved to Talk:Starlight problem

How about this heatwave?

How are you beating the heat? TerryB 17:29, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

It's summer. What took the heat so long to arrive, and why will it be leaving so soon?--Andy Schlafly 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Amen, Andy! After the wretchedly cold and wet spring we had, I'm going to enjoy the heat while it's here. I'll be shoveling snow soon enough! --Benp 19:08, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
I personally don't deal well with hot temperatures and high humidity. Especially because I melt metal for a living. I'll take spring/fall over this any day. WesleySHello! 19:25, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

... or maybe I was just wondering how you're beating the heat? But nevermind. TerryB 19:26, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

The heat isn't really going anywhere. Right now the forecast is 3 or 4 days of relief, sort of, then back in the 90s. I wasn't trying to be political. TerryB 07:13, 22 July 2011 (EDT)


Please could you unprotect the Scotland page. Some of the information is out of date (e.g. the government) and I would like to update it. Thanks. HollyS 17:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Doing it now. Conservative 19:29, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
It isn't protected. I didn't have to unprotect it. Conservative 19:30, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

(Belated) thanks for unprotecting Scotland, Andy. HollyS 18:37, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

User: RobS

Discussion moved to Conservapedia:Community Portal

Please delete

Please delete the page I have pointed out on recent changes!!! I have blocked the user that created it. MaxFletcher 20:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I do not condone that user's behaviour for a second but it is perfectly predictable. It is exactly what one would expect as a reaction to Conservative's trolling "essays". --PierreS 20:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I don't remember if it is standard practice or not, but you may want to delete the corresponding talk page as well, so it isn't hanging in the ether. WesleySHello! 20:35, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
It would help if someone provided a link. Rob Smith 21:18, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
It has been deleted. And the link would likely never have made it through the filters from the likes of me. WesleySHello! 21:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Pierre, I am sorry you feel that many atheists/evolutionists have thin skins and lack self-restraint when they read comedy/satires of atheism and evolution. Do you agree with Wired magazine's observation that atheists tend to be aggressive, socially challenged males?[2] Conservative 21:47, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Um, I believe the user has been blocked. And, just for the record, most of the atheists I have met (there are a lot in my part of the world) tend to be just as kind and socially adept as anyone else. But I wouldn't know about atheists the US. MaxFletcher 21:49, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, are you in the UK? Have you met Richard Dawkins? Conservative 00:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
No, I am not in the UK and no I haven't meet Richard Dawkins but I have read two of his books. Nonetheless most of the atheists I have met (there are a lot in my part of the world) tend to be just as kind and socially adept as anyone else including members of my family, colleagues and close friends. Most people in my part of the world are rather personal about their faith (or lack thereof) and don't feel the need to politicize nor pour scorn on the beliefs of others. MaxFletcher 00:47, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I see you live in NZ now. Please see if you can find some statistics on NZ Christian charitable giving versus NZ atheists charitable giving. In the USA, even if church giving isn't counted, Christians give more per capita according to some data that I am acquainted with. See: Atheism and uncharitableness I do think that charitable giving is an important form of kindness and also it can a good aggregate indicator as well in terms of a population's kindness - especially in the developed world. Conservative
Interestingly, there was an international survey on this recently. NZ has about 1/3 of the population marking "No religion" on the most recent survey and New Zealand came out as the most charitable country in the world next to Australia.. But again, most of the atheists I have met (there are a lot in my part of the world) tend to be just as kind and socially adept as anyone else including members of my family, colleagues and close friends. MaxFletcher 00:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, comparing apples to apples is far more meaningful and significant. Namely, you have to compare NZ Christians vs. NZ atheists. Conservative 01:24, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I can think of no such study I'm afraid nor does it have any bearing on my comment. I am in fact one of the only Christians in my group of friends (outside of church) and everyone treats me, and each other, with kindness and respect. MaxFletcher 01:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Elvis images

My requests somehow got stuck in an archive.--JamesWilson 00:21, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Here are some links to photos that might be usable in the article. One should be fair use, the other should be usable considering the rationale given.

:Elvis in Aloha from Hawaii :Cheers, --SharonW 10:00, 28 July 2011 (EDT) ::Since the original requests are archived somewhere, here is also one of him in the Army. ::Elvis in the Army Thanks!--JamesWilson 11:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I dug up the original requests and put them at Conservapedia:Image upload requests--JamesWilson 21:14, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

I put additional requests for the Bob Seger article, which I just started working on last night, as well. Thanks!--JamesWilson 23:28, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Never mind. Jpatt took care of the image requests. Thanks.--JamesWilson 15:15, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Hello Conservapedia!

Hi Mr. Schlafly. I'm a new user here, and I just wanted to thank you for making this resource. I look forward to continuing to contribute, and I hope my recent edits have improved the encyclopedia. Thanks! User:MorrisF

Ditto. This is a very good resource for students. I shudder to think what would happen if Wikipedia was the only reliable resources for my children. NickP 01:11, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Android App

Please give me your opinion on the CP mobile app. I feel it could be very useful for your homeschoolers and for general promotion of the site. May God Bless you.--FergusE 22:22, 28 July 2011 (EDT)


I was attempting to fix some pages with 'cite errors' (no references section) but they already had external links and when I attempted to save them it brings up that annoying Captcha thing. Is there any way that this can be applied only to new links? CAHERINE 03:16, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't think there is a way to do that since the CAPTCHA is triggered the moment links actually appear in an article that had not been there before. In this case, the "Cite Error" prevented the link from appearing in the article, so by the CAPTCHA's logic, you added them.
However, I suggested amending the CAPTCHA's Whitelist on the Community Portal, which would allow users to add links to trusted sites without going through the CAPTCHA. --Sid 3050 12:58, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Pardon me for being so dumb, but I've been meaning to ask you to explain this in more detail. I'm really a dimwit on this. Rob Smith 23:23, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

"Wanted pages" appears broken

Sorry, I wasn't sure where to raise this, but I was trying to load Special:WantedPages as it's always a good source for new articles, but it keeps coming up with a blank page, or it times out. Thought I would mention it, just in case there is a problem and it's not just my PC. Thanks! TracyS 11:29, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

I can't get it either, so it's not just you.--JamesWilson 11:51, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Atheist hospitals

Hello, Mr. Schlafly

I listened to your debate concerning the use of a cross in the 9/11 memorial. While I generally agree with you in this case (I am an atheist, and I don't care one way or another if there's a cross, and if it was indeed salvaged from the ruins then by all means include it), I have to take issue with your assertion concerning "atheist hospitals." I often hear people say similar things such as "there are no atheist charities" and I must say that that doesn't really apply. Atheism, in its rawest definition, means the lack of religion. It is not a religion, though there are organizations of atheists such as the one led by the man you debated with (personally, I find the idea of "organized atheism" to be silly). Anyways, there are atheist hospitals and charities: by default, any charity that does not take a religious stance or objective would be "atheistic." The Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, and Amnesty International would be good examples of charitable organizations that are not concerned with religion.

As an example, I, an atheist, am not defined by religion. I simply see no reason to believe in any supernatural or divine actors. Thus I do not do things in the name of what I don't believe. I still assist those in need, I still care about others, and if I were to build a hospital I would not call it an "atheist hospital." It would simply be a hospital, as there are many others out there.--CamilleT 22:45, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Per capita atheists and agnostics in America give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists. For more information please see: Atheism and uncharitableness
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conservative (talk)
Don't lump me in with your statistics. You don't know me. You know nearly nothing about me.--CamilleT 23:43, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

4 Sysops believe that RobS should lose his Admin rights - Another Sysop emailed me

Moved to Conservapedia:Community Portal

user:Jab512 parodist?

This user has been spamming the main talk with the comments (liberal athiest). His contribs dont look good either. 1 week block would be nice?Kinetics 00:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Says an editor who signed up today an hour ago.--SharonW 01:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)



From Leadership: Leadership is the skill of guiding the efforts of others in the performance of some tasks in order to achieve a goal.

A leader may have higher skills than his subordinates , although it is not essential. He directs activities through discipline and encouragement and displays the values expected. Where practicable he will explain why some action is needed rather than simply use his authority to demand compliance.

From World History Lecture Four: Under the theory that leaders, not ideas, define history, the Roman empire can be described as thriving when it had strong leaders (emperors), and failing when it did not. Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.) was a strong leader, and he is credited with establishing the Roman empire in the place of the Republic, which did not have a strong leader. During Pax Romana, there was a series of strong emperors. But upon the end of the Pax Romana in A.D. 180, the empire was handled by weak, incompetent or crazy emperors, many of whom served only a brief period before being assassinated. The end came with a nine-year-old emperor being removed from power by a foreign invader. That could hardly be a surprise to anyone.

RonLar 01:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

RonLar, I'm an admirer of your work (at right). Welcome to CP and I hope this is the beginning of a good collaboration. Rob Smith 16:54, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
Thanks - and thank you for uploading the pic, too. It shows the number of editors per month here at Conservapedia, based on the edits which are still undeleted on July 1, 2011.
  • the lowest numbers of editors can be seen in late 2010 when some ill-advised experiments with the account creation procedure took place and the blockhammer was wielded even more often than usual.
  • generally, many people edited here at Conservapedia when Conservapedia aroused the interest of other media: the creation of Conservapedia was widely covered, the whole Lenski-thing got attention, then there was Andy Schlafly's visit at the Colbert report, and the Bible project.
  • therefore it is quite interesting the the current surge isn't coinciding with unusual media covering...
  • it's unknown how many of these editors
  • I would assume that the number of unique editors in a month and the number of unique visitors correlates. Therefore it is quite a surprise that June 2011 broke the record of unique visitors - what about the first months of 2007?
A good collaboration? I had an enlightening exchange once with Andy about the selection bias on the Best New Conservative Words. And I addressed a challenge by Ed Poor about Censorship at Conservapedia. Here I'm still waiting for an answer. And Rob, will you be here to collaborate in the near future?
RonLar 08:25, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
I'm not certain; I'm fairly disillusioned by the behavior of several sysops who constantly eradicate and exterminate any efforts, whatsoever, to even begin discussion of the sites problems. Rob Smith 12:27, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
Your efforts were valiant, but they are doomed as long as you don't speak about the elephant in the room - or better: the lack of an elephant where there should be one! The excesses of the last days should have been avoided! RonLar 12:53, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
We've had some private discussions, and I think there may be a way out of this mess. Best to avoid problem users, focus on coherent proposals and I'll do what I can to mitigate bullying, abuse and harassment of editors. Rob Smith 15:22, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

RonLar, if you want to create a more collaborative spirit and increase the esprit de corps of Conservapedia, my suggestion at the present time is for a group of Conservapedians to pick a topic and then have editors create as many quality articles relating to that topic that are at least 500 words long. I would suggest that the articles not be stubs because that is not going to enhance the reputation of Conservapedia nor give it a sense of accomplishment. I created this project for a couple of editors who seemed interested in this topic: Conservapedia:Atheism Project I suggest creating a project with more widespread appeal because atheism is not on most people's radar in terms of the public at large - especially in the United States. Conservative 09:25, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm afraid you lost me there. My specialty isn't long articles, but pretty diagrams. Maybe you wanted to address Ed Poor? RonLar 09:36, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
RonLar, please create a graph/diagram on the number of prominent obese atheists since 1962 which is when prayer was taken out of American schools as I am sure Mr. Schlafly would be interested in such a graph. :) Conservative 10:19, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
If you can provide me with tangible data I'll be happy to oblige. From what I've seen until it seems to be impossible to differ an atheist from a Christian just by weighing their bodies... RonLar 10:32, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
13% of adult Americans were obese in America in 1962 (23,312,013); 33.8% of adult Americans were obese in 2010 (104,355,992), which is about right considering approximately 70% of Americans consider themselves Christians (approximately 125,526,223). --SharonW 14:34, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
Roughly half of all Americans are women. And 50% of al Americans live within 50 miles of their birthplace. Sounds about right: women don't travel, men won't stay at home. RonLar 14:44, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
Except, of course, for those outliers like my hubby and me. He livess 10 miles away from the house he was born in. And my sons are still living in the house they were born in. Me, on the other hand, I'm 1800 miles away from my hometown.--SharonW 14:53, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
Conservative: Here's a suggestion of two topics to collaborate on Conservapedia:Blocking policy and Conservapedia:Sysop accountability. Now, if we can only keep User:Karajou from blocking and exterminating users volunteering their time and offering the benefit of their experience as wiki editors, we could possibly save ourselves a few weeks or years. Rob Smith 12:33, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

***Featured article - please help***

The Featured Article Committee chose Elvis Presley for this week's article, but we need someone who can edit the main page to change it for us. Thanks a bunch! --SharonW 10:49, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

To add: The only sysop on our committee is on vacation. Thanks!--JamesWilson 10:55, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

I'll get it. Thanks. Rob Smith 15:11, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Thanks much!!!--JamesWilson 15:16, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

What was the problem with the Presley family photo? Was it copyright? It's OK, I was just wondering. Thanks!--JamesWilson 18:20, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Its source was a broken link.--Andy Schlafly 19:20, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
OK. Maybe I will find a replacement that is fair use and request it later. Thanks!--JamesWilson 22:59, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Capthca thing

Hi Andy, hope you are well. I am getting trouble from the captcha box whenever I try to add a link. Is there any way to turn it off? It was especially annoying yesterday when I blocked a vandal and had to revert a whole lot of pages. It took me ages because each page had links. Thanks and let me know. MaxFletcher 21:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

I just gave your account SkipCaptcha. Sorry for not granting your account that privilege earlier.--Andy Schlafly 22:55, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Just saw that, thanks! It makes it a lot easier to revert vandalism. Enjoy the rest of your day/evening (whatever it is over there). MaxFletcher 22:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Hi, I would like to apply for upload rights in order to edit economics articles

Mr. Schlafly, I have an MS in Finance and Statistics, currently work in industry on thew buy side, and would like to upload screenshots from Bloomberg to illustrate essentially how bad the economy is under Obama. I have made several important contributions already which belong to the Federal Debt Limit article (these contributions have already been slandered by liberals, but they still are part of our article.) If you would like me to give you more details about my background, let me know! HP 23:25, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Upon further thought, Andy, I don't think I need upload rights quite yet. I was unaware there was a page for users to ask for requests. i don't think my edits will be that frequent right now. Thanks! HP 16:20, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Other request

I would like to request image uploading privileges as well. It would make improving articles easier so I wouldn't have to wait for my requests to be processed. I believe I have already made some substantial contributions to articles I was working on. Thank you for processing my request.--JamesWilson 12:31, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Response to requests

Thanks for the requests. Additional privileges are based on merit and requests for those privileges are taken under advisement. It requires surveying other contributors too. We'll be doing a general review and hopefully you can continue to contribute in the meantime.--Andy Schlafly 10:32, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Sounds good. I will continue to contribute as I have then, in between family vacations and yardwork. Thanks much again!--JamesWilson 11:16, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Christians in name only?

Hi Andy,

I came upon this rather shocking piece today, and wondered whether there's already an article for this phenomenon? I couldn't find one by searching, but perhaps it has a non-obvious name. If not, I'll begin one. Thanks, Jcw 08:43, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Do you mean Cafeteria Christianity?--JamesWilson 08:50, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
I considered that, but this seems even more bizarrely irrational - cafeteria Christianity, as I understand it, involves believing in the basics of Christianity, but picking and choosing specific beliefs, often moral or social exhortations. These are people who call themselves Christians, go to church services, have priests in clerical garb etc., but overtly don't believe even in God or the historicity of Jesus, let alone the Trinity or the infallibility of Scripture. Jcw 09:57, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
Well, that sounds more like Liberal Christianity.--JamesWilson 10:05, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
Or Unitarianism JohnMcL 10:08, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
Ah yes, I'd been looking for 'liberal theology'. Thanks. Jcw 10:11, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Bible Against Simulated Violence Project

I'm on a hunt for some Bible verses to show that violence in arcade games is wrong. Do you know of a passage that can be interpreted as against simulated violence? I can think of about two off of the top of my head, but I want to hear what you think. --WilliamMoran 00:16, 7 August 2011 (EDT)


I think that Horace should be unblocked. I have posted this request to RobS's page but you were the blocking sysop. Could you please review the block? --S0CK0FH0RACE 22:33, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Request for SkipCapcha rights

Andy, please give my Conservapedia account SkipCaptcha rights. Conservative 04:42, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

All administrators have that right already. --Sid 3050 07:52, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Thanks. I saw that one of the Admins (DouglasA) had SkipCapcha listed HERE and I thought there may be some task or tasks at CP that requires SkipCapcha for Admins. I was tired when I posted this and should have realized there was no task or tasks (or at least very few tasks) for Admins that require SkipCapcha when I made the post. Conservative 13:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Deceptive statement by John Calvert

Conservative asked me to bring the following to your attention:

At Atheism, we find the the following:

John Calvert, a lawyer and intelligent design proponent wrote:
The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.

I commented on the talk page:

The Supreme Court of the United States held that corporates are persons and therefore they can marry. (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission)
This is of course as wrong as the statement:
The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school.
In the first case there was a verdict that a corporate has to be treated like a person under the First Amendment, while in the second case it was found that atheism has to be treated like a religion, again only under the First Amendment.
(See KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY 419 F.3d 678 (2005))
Conservative, you can't be blamed for the deceitful reasoning of John Calvert, but you should have learned over the time that you have to be careful with second-hand quotations - you should go to the original source!
To make it as clear as possible: The Seventh Judicial Circuit Of the Court of Appeals of the United States said nothing about the promotion of atheism by a public school, though this is implied by John Calvert.
Could someone remove John Calvert's deceptive statement, please?

So, could you give us your legal insight? Thanks RonLar 18:04, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Horace again

I am not sure if you noticed the above request but I asked if you could review Horace's block as the blocking sysop. I think if you look at the edit history you will agree that the length of the block was excessive. --Spheniscidae 17:24, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

The general policy here is for Sysops to respect each others' blocks. I rarely change someone else's block. Appeals should be made to the person who did the block.--Andy Schlafly 19:57, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Hi Andy, just so you know there is no way to appeal a block with many, if not all, of the sysops as talk pages are locked and the email system disabled. MaxFletcher 22:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
True, but in this case you (Andy) were the blocking sysop. --Spheniscidae 23:17, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Oops ... but I checked the block log and I wasn't the last person to block him. In reply to Max, you make a good point and do you have a suggestion for an appeal process that doesn't take up too much time?--Andy Schlafly 23:48, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Is there any way in the software to block a user but allow him to post to a single page, like an "appeals page"? Any further abuse could easily be reverted and users posting right taken away. MaxFletcher 23:52, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
The last block was as follows: 22:07, 3 October 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked Horace (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk). There was a subsequent "reblock" but that was by TK and was merely to remove email. Are you suggesting that TK needs to be consulted? --Spheniscidae 23:54, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Here's the block log. Rob Smith 13:12, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Apparently, Horace refuses to change his little tune, even after a few years of being blocked for it. What we have is a record of harassment, socks, more harassment, fights, and so on. Karajou 00:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Apologies if I'm talking out of turn, but can something be done about this clown's endless supply of socks? Could a range block stop him? He seems only to have started this intense sockpuppetry recently, so perhaps one of the recently-lifted range bans was keeping him out? Jcw 09:19, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Range blocks strangled the project. What is needed, are sysops who not only know how to apply a block, but under what circumstances when to apply a block. Everything these blocking sysops have tried has categorically failed to block User:Horace, that much is abundantly clear. This particular case (one of several dozen) only highlights the need for serious reform and sysop accountability. The idea that sysops can rid Conservapedia of User:Horace by blocking him is like thinking a raise in the debt ceiling will bring about deficit reduction. How much more time should we waste with this idea that the banhammer, or range blocks, or lack of community standards and sysop accountability, is the answer to all our problems? Rob Smith 12:59, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
I know there are significantly less atheist women, but I would suggest that if Horace does not have a girlfriend/wife, he might consider trying to obtain one and be less obsessed with Conservapedia. He might discover that women are far more interesting than rants against Conservapedia content. :) Conservative 12:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
The reason why Horace has started his intense sockpuppetry is that he has been banned from another wiki plus I refuse to read his emails. So he is extremely frustrated plus his infantile craving for attention is not being satisfied. Conservative 21:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
I must say I'm confused to see a sysop apparently helping this troll's socks... Jcw 13:02, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
A correction. Horace has been de-blocked at another wiki. I think it is a long shot that he will ever be allowed back here. I think AmesG with his apparently declining leftist/progressive blog readership has a better chance,[3][4] but that will probably never happen too. Conservative 15:28, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Blocking review

The active written policy currently states,

the first thing you should do is review your communications with others here, particularly those who are admins;

this can be a big problem, seeing the rampant archiving of active discussions, revision, deletion, and oversighting by admins trying to cover the tracks of their own policy violations. Here's a long list of abuses documented here. Needless to say, the user is in fear for his life against reprisal simply for speaking up, which is all too common. Rob Smith 16:06, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

I'd like to point out- without looking at the merits of Horace's case, of which I have made to attempt to discern, nor do I wish to do so- that with the Email this user feature now disabled appealing a block has become an impossible undertaking short of petitioning an administrator on another site or creating various sock-puppet accounts.--CamilleT 17:30, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
The things about this individual are 1) he already has Andy's email, but he's got to bully his way back here, and 2), if he's so desperate to edit in a wiki, there are several hundred online for him to choose from...any wiki except this one. Perhaps there's a wiki on cats that he could happily edit. Karajou 17:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
You're still missing the point. Let's suppose a user, any user, is mistakenly blocked by a sysop as a vandal or sockpuppet. And let's suppose the sysop then reverts the blocked users edits, and let's suppose the sysop then archives active discussions the editor was in, and let's suppose the sysop then deletes talk page comments, and let's further suppose the sysop improperly oversights discussions the editor was in. What recourse would a good faith editor who has been unfairly blocked, or an advocate, have? These sort of sysop actions are entirely too prevelent on this website. Rob Smith 21:07, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
I was right; there is one[5], and at 248 pages it sure needs a lot of help! Karajou 17:41, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Could the reason why Horace and friends are so eager to edit this particular wiki is due to the atheism and evolution articles? If I am not mistaken, the Conservapedia evolution article was a big cause, if not the cause, for a whole new wiki to have been launched (which is a very obsessive wiki filled with obscenity). Conservative 19:16, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
What I meant is that in the future, blocked users won't have access to admins' email addresses. Certainly this Horace fellow seems to be a jerk.--CamilleT 20:13, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Main Page HTML

<center><big>"'''[[Dow Jones|Dow]] off 500+ points" in another [[stock market]] crash below 11,000.''' []</big>

Can you please add </center> after </big>? User:Conservative's talk page is protected and Special:EmailUser is disabled, so I can't teach him how to repair his mistake. Conservative accidentally placed </center> before (instead of after) </big>. --Michaeldsuarez 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservative fixed the problem. If he or she is reading this: thank you. --Michaeldsuarez 21:30, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

World History

Hi Andy, just wondering when this will begin? I have signed up and keen crack on with it. Cheers! MaxFletcher 19:47, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

The signup thing says Sept. 1.--JamesWilson 20:13, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
Doh! I should have looked! MaxFletcher 20:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Not sure if its MPR worthy but

A pretty good success story for a entrepreneur who never even finished high school (He even calls out HS on the Jack of all trades it wants to make kids)--SeanS 22:09, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Sure, if running pyramid schemes is considered honest work. That's what his company, ViSalus, does.--CamilleT 22:16, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Election propaganda?

Hi! I was wondering if you thought it would be okay for me to create an article on propaganda in elections. I ask because I recently received some flyers in the mail from a political candidate that twisted the facts to portray the truth in a false light (for example, it referred to the tea party as anti-middle class even though it opposes taxes, and tried to show how the state democrats had improved the economy even though they actually did nothing productive while in control). I only worry that it could potentially overlap too much with another article that could exist that I haven't found.

Sorry if I should be asking this somewhere else. Thanks!--MorrisF 22:40, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

I think that would be a fascinating new entry!--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
Great! I'll do some more research into the topic, and then get to writing an article. Thanks!--MorrisF 01:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
Sounds interesting, maybe I could add an international perspective? MaxFletcher 01:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
Certainly.--MorrisF 17:54, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Have you made a determination yet?

Have you made a determination yet regarding the false slanders, and malicious smears directed against my person, character, and integrity? I would remind you, I, like yourself, edit under my real life identity. I'm sure you will agree with me about the unfairness of having your character impugned by anonymous internet trolls who hide behind ficticious user names.

In our private correspondence I stated I would respond at the Community Portal yesterday, however the page and its archives have suffered several vandal attacks just over the past 24-36 hours. I was blocked from responding to these baseless smears, then the blocking sysop reverted himself, unblocked me, left my IP blocked, and refused private contact which contradicts CP unblocking policy. I was severely inconvenienced for the whole day, and have been restricted from responding to these false allegations that I am a person lacking in integrity. And further, I've been insulted as a "dishonest fool", or some such.

I'm not telling you how to run your website, sir. I'm simply asking for simple fairness, as someone who has proven himself trustworthy with sysop powers. Are you going to allow the attacks on my person and character to stand, or will you direct the parties who have over stepped the bounds of decency to apologize? Thank you for your attention. Rob Smith 13:09, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Comments by other users and sysops

Out of interest, Rob, do you intend to apologize for the slanders you've spread about me and your fellow sysops? Jcw 14:36, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
(a) Slanders? (b) diffs? (c) Is User:Jcw a real life identity? Rob Smith 14:43, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
I'm not going to link to obscene vandal sites here, but I'm sure you can work out which comments I'm talking about. Or do you stand by what you've said about me, Conservative, Karajou and others on that site? Even here on CP you've made disgustingly opprobrious comments: "18:30, 2 August 2011 RobSmith (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked TracyS (Talk | contribs) ‎ (blocking sysop insanity is not cause for blocking)", which as you well know is tame compared to what you've publicly said elsewhere. I don't like to bring this up; I wouldn't have said anything if it wasn't for what looks to me like an appalling double standard in your message above, but I really can't stand to see such bare-faced dishonesty. Jcw 16:05, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
I inserted a break for this little conversation: it makes it easier for Andy Schlafly to address RobSmith's points without any distraction. RonLar 17:03, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
Jcw: (a) show one diff here I said anything derogatory about yourself; (b) TracyS was blocked as "Sock of RobS", which of course, is insane. I stand by that comment. And further, I am referring to an fictitious user account (User:Karajou), who made a blatantly false aspersion on my person and character, User:RobSmith, who in real life is, Rob Smith. This fictitious user account, (User:Karajou) violates Conservapedia's own rules about user names. And this same unaccountable, fictitious user name (User:Karajou) has not only made false statements about a real life person ("Commandment 1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable"), he has blocked literally hundreds of user accounts for violating a rule ("Without transparency from users, there can be no accountability", Conservapedia:Guidelines) he himself has refused to abide by. Rob Smith 17:38, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
As I say, I'm not going to post links to a vandal wiki here. You surely recall the comments you've made, and if you can't work out which ones are insulting that speaks volumes. As does your claim that a disagreement over blocking justifies calling a fellow sysop 'insane'. I really think you shouldn't have cast the first stone here. Jcw 17:53, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
To quote User:Conservative : Motion dismissed. I suggest you appeal your case to a Harvard Law School alumni. I don't think he will respond and he probably will refuse to hear your case. Conservative 17:38, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
What makes you think that Andy Schlafly will respond to you, Rob? RonLar 17:55, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
Jcw: So, you are unable to find one diff that I ever said anything offensive about yourself, thank you. Secondly, if you wish to hold blocking powers, I would encourage you to become familiar with Conservapedia site policy which states, "We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere" [6] Seems to me, you are bringing extraneous arguments. However, ignoring the rules, and making comments off-topic that run directly counter to Conservapedia's written rules, gets you off on the right foot.
For the third time, I'm not going to post links to a vandal site here. I haven't been here long enough to pronounce on the nuances of site policy, but I can't believe that the Conservapedia Commandments are meant to allow sysops brazenly and publicly to insult their colleagues from the safety of a cesspit of trolls. However, you've made it quite clear that you're not prepared to retract those comments, so there's little point in continuing this discussion. Jcw 18:34, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
What are you saying? Your will, whims and prejudices trump Conservapedia site policy? Rob Smith 18:37, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
Ron: It has been my belief til now that Mr. Schlafly believes in accountability. When I entered the project more than 4 years, that was to be one large difference between Wikipedia and Conservapedia. Accountability is the basis of Conservapedia's username policy. Only in the past month I personally asked Mr. Schlalfy to consider revising Conservpadia's user name policy, yet his desire is to stand by requiring users to register with their real name. Rob Smith 18:08, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Reply to the above

No one is required to edit here using his real full name. Indeed, the user name policy here discourages the use of a real full name in setting up an account and editing. Those who choose to edit here using their real full name should expect possible criticism in public. The Constitution's First Amendment right to free speech protects that.

That said, if there is a specific comment that warrants extra-special attention, then please post it below with the link, and I'll review it.

Please keep in mind that the 90/10 rule applies on this site to prevent unproductive discussions from interfering with the purpose of this site: to educate and learn in a productive way. Thank you.--Andy Schlafly 18:48, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC)Thanks for that timely reminder, Andy. It was a mistake to be drawn into this unproductive argument. As ever, Scripture is the answer, in this case Galatians 6:7. Jcw 19:01, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
This happens a lot: I'm afraid that you erroneously only read the first paragraph of Rob Smith's edit. Here is the second one, complete with all the things which warrant extra-special attention
In our private correspondence I stated I would respond at the Community Portal yesterday, however the page and its archives have suffered several vandal attacks just over the past 24-36 hours. I was blocked from responding to these baseless smears, then the blocking sysop reverted himself, unblocked me, left my IP blocked, and refused private contact which contradicts CP unblocking policy. I was severely inconvenienced for the whole day, and have been restricted from responding to these false allegations that I am a person lacking in integrity. And further, I've been insulted as a "dishonest fool", or some such.
Glad to be able to help -- RonLar 18:56, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
Well, you heard it from the boss, discussions on wiki sysop "accountability" are "unproductive". Rob Smith 19:07, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
No, "Ron", that does not include a link as requested. In response to Rob, I am being productive in seeking to end the bickering.--Andy Schlafly 19:11, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
Well Andy, having a fictitious user account invent lies about me, block me for reverting vandalism, then revert himself, then unblock me but leaves the IP blocked, then ignore site policy by making himself inaccessible while he continues to post false information about me (another site rule violation), does not really point the finger at me as the source of bickering. I'm the victim here. Rob Smith 19:18, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
Rob, we respect freedom of speech here, and that includes being criticized. If you don't want to be criticized, then don't speak out publicly. But once you (or anyone else) speaks out publicly, then please respect the First Amendment right of others to criticize, and then move on to more productive activities. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
Good. Let's not digress. Tell me why I was desysoped. Rob Smith


Just noticed--thanks for moving Super Congress for me.--MorrisF 17:00, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

New Atheism and excess weight

Could you unprotect the page on "New Atheism leadership's problems with excess weight"? There's some valuable information on that page but some of it is awfully speculative and relies on circumstantial evidence. I'd like to clean it up a bit. Thanks! ---DennisR 19:00, 14 August 2011 (EDT)