User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ottava (Talk | contribs) at 21:45, 5 October 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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 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 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)

Archiving vs. trimming

I added the sections

to User talk:Aschlafly/Archive49. By trimming them, you just deleted those sections, and therefore the information could get lost in the future if this page is (accidentally) deleted.

Personally I think that especially this talk page should be exemplary when it comes to follow wiki-customs.

AugustO 14:55, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

It's andy's talk page, he can do as he wishes with what gets posted on here--SeanS 15:35, 3 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)

There's NEVER any discussion about blocks made by senior admins, or at least never any that achieves anything. Given that there's no appeal against even the most capricious block, OF COURSE people are going to use proxies to create a new account if they want to keep editing here. Karajou's paranoia has over-ridden his good sense and he now seems to be obsessed with the idea that every new user is a sock of LeonardS or Human. Account creation is turned off more and more often and users are leaving or being blocked at a fearsome rate. Pretty soon there won't be anyone left here except the sysadmins. SeanS is one of those who's left; he's sick of the current bestiality obsession, as are all the remaining sane editors. If YOU aren't sick of it, shame on you. --Coults 19:32, 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)

Request for Admin assistance

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See here for the latest accusation. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. MaxFletcher 19:21, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with you 100%, Max, but you're wasting your breath. Conservapedia as a genuine information resource is dead; it's just Ken's blog now and the only person who can stop him, Aschlafly, is too dazzled by page hits (almost all of which are from RW users, who find the current Bestiality Festival hilarious) to do so. It saddens me that it's come to this, but without swift action by Aschlafly, which just isn't going to happen, CP is finished. As Khalid has already said, what's the point in adding decent content here? Nobody's going to read it and anyone who did wouldn't dare cite CP as a source, for fear of being laughed at for believing what they read on BeastBlog. Even if they DON'T ban you, Max, get out of here before it soils you. --Coults 19:27, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Create section for Conservatives off point and irrelevant comments

Max, you are the most outspoken person at Conservapedia against my various articles on atheism. And now you try to be a cheerleader about some alleged Guardian article about atheists/agnostics which doesn't even specifically mention atheists/agnostics and you do not take into account the 8/09 article I cite at sciencedaily. Max, just because there are lazy theists slackers who don't want to roll out of bed on Sunday, does not mean there are more significantly more atheists/agnostics in the Western World. We do know that the world atheist population is declining while the number of people saying they are Christians is exploding (see: Global Christianity). Conservative 19:39, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
Maybe he is the most outspoken because you block all of your critics. --SalS 19:45, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

By the way, a Christian author/Christian apologist is linking to this Conservapedia article I recently wrote which is raising the ire of various atheists. I haven't decided whether to heavily promote the article yet so many more people will see the shameful words and/or behavior of various secular societies and various evolutionists/atheists! Conservative 20:12, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, either you're a super-parodist or you have no social skills. I wish you'd take some well-meant advice. KhalidM 20:18, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
Actually KhalidM, I have a very outgoing personality and a university professor friend of mine told me that I would make a great administrator because I can be very diplomatic. While I realize that I will never cultivate a large atheist or liberal fan club, I can live with that. Conservative 20:34, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
That holds no water, Conservative. I'm sorry, but I thought we made it clear that we don't like university professors. --SpenserL 20:36, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
The Apostle Paul wrote to be at peace with all men if possible and I presume that includes university professors. Also, another university professor friend of mine read the Conservapedia atheism article which I largely wrote and he very much liked the article. I recently visited his university due to some work I was doing at his academic establishment, but I didn't have a chance to visit him due to time restrictions. There are atheists who obsess about me and would love to know what work I was doing at his university and unfortunately for them, I am not going to disclose the work I was doing at that university. :) Conservative 20:56, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, this has gone way off track. Max's original complaint was that you insist on calling him an atheist when he is a person of faith. Can you maybe see your way to criticize his arguments without calling him an atheist without just cause? ScottDG 21:03, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

RodWeathers was an atheist who claimed to be a Christian, but later his confessed he was not (not before I got him to write some specific articles though which I think is very humorous). I was also an early person to call Bugler and others poser Christians and I was correct in those cases as well. While I suppose Max could merely be a so called "liberal Christian" and Darwinist and an atheism sympathizer, I still think he is probably an atheist. Conservative 21:13, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
I have NEVER given you any reason to make any judgement about me. Please desist. MaxFletcher 21:16, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
By the way, there does appear to be an atheist who speculates that I was a subject of a study at a university and that was the work I was doing at the academic establishment. Of course, typically atheist speculation is entirely wrong and this was no exception. I will briefly add that I got along with the head person at that location at the university very well and of course I got along great with her employees as well. :) A gracious offer was made to feed me, but I declined the offer as I recently ate breakfast (a clue: I was not working at a university cafeteria or an eating establishment at a university). :) In fact, it appears as if I will be returning in about a month to do more work at that university. :) Conservative 21:41, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, you have less proof that Max Fletcher is an atheist than we have that you are Ken Demyer of Buffalo, New York, who used to edit from a University of Buffalo IP address. However if you are right (and I don't know max so I can't say if he is an atheist or just an honest person) then comparing him to Rod weathers and Bugeler isn't really apt. If MF is pretending to be a christian it's to stop you from saying ridiculous and stupid things, Bugler and Rod bot pretended to be Christians in order to get you to say stupid and ridiculous things. --TylerV 22:30, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

User:Conservative - the minute the person themself becomes the topic of the argument, the argument has been lost. Max was discussing atheism as a subject - you refused to stay on-topic and instead chose to attack Max. Atheist or not, he's the one that's ahead in this discussion. --SharonW 22:42, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Due to cognitive inflexibility, it appears as if an atheist is speculating that I am an expert in a particular field. The idea that I may have talents in multiple fields appears to have been precluded. Of course, the preclusion of the possibility that I may be a polymath is not surprising since atheists/liberals are always downplaying the role that Christianity had in the Renaissance and one of Andy's students made mention of this. :) My uncle who is a retired person who was in the music field hinted that I should have gotten in the music field. My song The atheism blues seems to have rocketed to the top 10 in the charts for atheism blues songs![2] Conservative 22:45, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
So your argument is that Atheists are so inferior that they fail to see how you making an irrational argument against a person is okay because of how fantastically smart and good at song writing you are? I'd like to seed the remainder of my time to my opponent in the interest of fairness. --Traeger 23:03, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

I am going to shoot down another atheist speculation. There was no food (for example, vegetable dip) offered to me from a food table at the university in question which I recently did work at. And unlike some portly atheists (see: Atheism and obesity), I don't wander around universities hoping to find food tables with sour cream and mayonnaise vegetable dips! Conservative 23:06, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Regardless of whether Atheists are bad, greedy, fat, etc., do you constantly have to mock them like that? The straw men and some really strange claims are inappropriate. Ottava (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Major concern

User:Jimjast is the one who is most anti-relativity and Big Bang because he relies on the work of a proven atheist who was violently atheistic (and laughably debunked). Furthermore, Jimjast claims to be working on a PhD but then claims that it is unofficial (with a lovely white washed bio here). As an individual who has two Masters and is finishing their dissertation, I am very offended about a bogus claim about an "unofficial PhD". There is no such thing. The guy fakes credentials and is promoting a prominent atheist as proof that a major discovery by a Catholic and accepted by many religious groups is wrong. Ottava (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2011 (EDT)