# User talk:Aschlafly/Archive19

This is the current revision of User talk:Aschlafly/Archive19 as edited by Jallen (Talk | contribs) at 08:43, December 7, 2007. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

## LQ

You misunderstood my proposal. I was not proposing a Liberal Quotient, I was proposing a scale that measures whether something is conservative or liberal, and how much so. If you want a LQ then it would have to be LQ = L/L+C. I think it makes more sense to have a scale that goes from conservative to liberal rather that zero to liberal. The american public is conservative, not liberal, so why do we have to give the liberals a number. --CPAdmin1 20:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

LQ = L/L+C means a ten-fold increase in liberal control results in only a 10% increase in LQ. That's a silly metric. Would you also like temperature to be a on a scale from 0 to 1??
Many liberals think of themselves as anything other than conservative. For example, liberals push Islam (e.g., the new Democratic congressman), even though Islam is contrary to virtually everything most liberals believe. So it only makes sense for the scale to go from 0 to increasingly liberal.--Aschlafly 21:00, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
The scale goes the other way, too, Andy. Please be intelligent about this. "Rigging" the formula so that the "liberal" range is from "1 to infinity" and the "conservative" range is from "1 to zero" just reflects poorly.
Think - on your scale, a tenfold increase in conservative control results in a small blip, say, from 0.2 to 0.02 - a "difference" of only 0.18 (that was 10/50 to 10/500). How can you celebrate that? Reverse that to liberal (50/10 to 500/10), and the LQ goes from 5 to 50. On the (rejected) L/L+C scale, it goes from about 83% to 98%. People do understand percentage and can see the difference. I'm only trying to help, here. One day, the two "quotients" may be common parlance, and as the person who apparently came up with the idea, you want to make it as useful and clear as possible. It's a potentially smart idea that might catch on - but for it to catch on outside "certain circles" it has to have what we might call "balance". I'd also be totally behind a metric that runs from -1 to 1 or -100 to 100, with zero as the natural "equity" center point.
One last point, not a valid "argument" but note what CPadmin1 says. He is just trying to make it make sense. Ironically, if you reversed the numbers, you'd get liberal majorities marginalized between one and zero, and conservative ones from one to, well, very big numbers. Human 21:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
You could express the same criticism for the Kelvin temperature scale. But like that scale, there is very little close to zero on the liberal quotient. The American public is at 1/2, and groups don't get much closer to zero than that. In contrast, there is a great deal above 1/2. Wikipedia is at 3, American university faculties are probably at 10 or higher, and I'd place the ACLU at 20 or so. So the objection above is illusory in practice.--Aschlafly 22:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Your temperature comparison makes no sense. There is a limit to how liberal it can get (everybody liberal) temperature has no limit. the LQ needs to have a limit. --CPAdmin1 22:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
I know you don't care too much about majority, but every time this comes up nobody (regardless of political views) agrees with you. --CPAdmin1 22:43, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Ha ha ha. Look, I have an open mind about this and welcome an alternative definition of liberal quotient that is a sensible metric. But the objections range from "let's not measure it at all" (i.e., pretend there is no liberal bias) to "let's use a contrived metric that downplays" increases in the bias. L/C = liberal quotient. Really, what's the fuss?--Aschlafly 22:50, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Going back in time one of your arguments was: "Your math is flawed because it doesn't recognize that all the people who are neither liberal or conservative." It seems that you are making the same mistake. --CPAdmin1 22:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, I'm just trying to help - but I guess what that might mean depends on your goal. If you want a way to have the LQ create huge numbers for relatively liberal organizations, or job descriptions, that's your choice. Rush will love you, but no one in the real world will care. If, however, you make it a sensible definition, it just might gain traction. Your currently "contrived metric" has the goal of making any situation that is more than 50% liberal look like it skyrockets off the chart (ie, towards infinity). LQ=L/L+C is not contrived, it is honest. Eh, I'll IM you one of these nights so we can just talk about it... Human 23:03, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
PS, if LQ = L/C, then obviously, CQ = C/L. Please allow that article to exist here. Human 23:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't know that I would object to such an entry, if it is not distorted. But I think that's a silly scale because the ratio C/L is never much bigger than 2 and is often 0.1 or less. Your ratio seems motivated by a mindless equality or symmetry that does not exist.--Aschlafly 23:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Uh, Actually, if LQ = L/C then CQ would have to be C/L. --CPAdmin1 23:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
I Think the problem is that we are trying to define something that the numbers don't really give us. we can say that the ratio of liberals to conservatives in wikipedia is 6 times higher than that of the american public, but that does not imply how liberal either of them is. --CPAdmin1 23:54, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Shouldn't LQ= L/Total Population and CQ= C/Total Population?AdrianP 00:11, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, or LQ = L/L+C and CQ = C/L+C, but Aschlafly refuses to accept either of those. --CPAdmin1 00:13, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
L/L+C would not be as accurate as L/Total Population because that doesn't take into account the moderates or sheepAdrianP 00:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

## You legal expertise and conservative views wanted

Dear Andy,

AmesG had substantial input for these articles: Roe v. Wade, Gay rights, Fourteenth Amendment, Lawrence v. Texas and Gonzales v. Carhart. Perhaps, you might want to add your input to these articles. Conservative 22:05, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow. It's going to be a long night!--Aschlafly 22:34, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Better send someone out for extra coffee! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

## An idea to build more internet traffic to Conservapedia

Wikipedia gives the top 1,000 articles for its website as can be seen here: http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/%7Eleon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=1000&month=04%2F2007&mode=view

I think we might be able to drive more http://www.google.com and other traffic to Conservapedia if we make the following articles at Conservapedia better based on the first 100 or so most popular articles at Wikipedia:

What do you think about starting a Conservapedia improvement drive for these articles? Clearly these are serious subjects that people are interested in based on Wikipedia statistics. Therefore, I believe from a priority view of creating important articles and from a strategic point of view in regards to creating internet traffic to Conservapedia, it makes a lot of sense to start a improvement drive in regards to these Conservapedia articles. I also think that a lot of people gave their lives in regards to these issues (WWI, WWI, Jesus) and it is important that these subjects be covered.Conservative 22:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a great idea, Conservative!--Aschlafly 23:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
How do you suggest organizing an effort? Also, could you put a notice on the front page regarding a improvement drive for these articles? Conservative 23:10, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow that's a whole lot of sex, Pokemon, and Harry Potter. --Sulgran 23:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

You're right about that, Sulgran! I had the exact same reaction. Wikipedia is a traffic-builder, not an encyclopedia.--Aschlafly 00:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Please keep the list on the front page until the articles are substantial and Google ranks them high. I believe the Google traffic could be substantial for these articles once they are built up. I believe that these articles could be ranked high once they are built up based on the Google rankings for some of our articles. Conservative
To build more traffic we could have some users go over to wikipedia and inform the conservative editors over there to join conservapedia.AdrianP 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Adrian, that won't work. It has already been tried. Conservative 00:42, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh sorry, I had no idea that you already tried that. I was just throwing out suggestions. AdrianP 00:44, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I didn't say I tried it. I merely said it had been tried. Whether or not I tried it shall be a mystery. LOL Conservative 00:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Do you know how google ranks their pages? Merely expanding the articles and keeping them on the front page will not help, wikipedia is ranked so high because others on the internet link to wikipedia articles when they discuss a topic. No one does that for conservapedia, if you want to increase page rank outside of narrow search strings that purposefully include conservapedia, you are going to have to convince the rest of us that conservapedia has something to offer, and when we start linking to it from blogs and other websites your page rank goes up. Yet ANOTHER example of how conservapedia needs the rest of us more than we need it. Will wonders never cease? Tmtoulouse 13:35, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
If we offer quality material and in depth material on those topics some people will link to them. I suppose you could say for ideological reasons they won't link to Conservapedia, but I suspect a lot of people who are interested in Jesus, WWI and WWII are also conservatives. Also, a lot of people link to Wikipedia and Wikipedia is quite liberal.Conservative 22:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

## Question about your beliefs

Have you heard how they genetically alter fruit to make new fruits? I strongly disagree with this practice because it messes with the Earth the way it was created. Next it will be human cloning. This is just a stepping stone. Whats your opinion? (By the way I love your user page! It is so exciting. Mine is boring.) Thanks your friend--BushRules12 23:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not a fan of genetically altered fruit either. Look forward to seeing some of your edits on this site!--Aschlafly 00:02, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Genetically altered fruit doesn't even taste good. Why don't these scientists do something useful? AdrianP 00:27, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
A parody? Please, not on my talk page.--Aschlafly 00:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
What was my post a parody of? I wasn't trying to imitate you if that is what you think. I was serious when I said that genetically altered fruit doesn't taste good. AdrianP 00:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
• LOL Please try to remember that Christians are always dour, and never have any fun! ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

BushRules12, if you are interested in a Christian viewpoint on this, I suggest you have a read of Frankenstein Foods?. Philip J. Rayment 05:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

## Jesus article

Due to the article improvement drive I am unprotecting the Jesus article. Please watch for vandals. Conservative 00:09, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I think that you should leave the Jesus article locked and have users first submit what they want to add to the discussion page and then have the sysops add the new information in. This article will be vandalized a lot if it is open for anyone to edit. AdrianP 00:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
We can remove the vandalism during and after the improvement drive. The vandalism will not be a permanent fixture. Conservative
Better idea, I believe the Wiki software can allow us to restrict the editing to old users and keep out new users. They do that at Wikipedia all the time. Conservative

## Day in history

Mr. Schlafly, i see you want more on today in history. in 1945 Dachau was liberated. it was the first concentration camp to be exposed and the first that Americans were able to see of the Holocaust.Bohdan

## TO: andy, more conservative legal work for you!

AmesG also had substantial input to this article: Substantive due process. Conservative 01:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

## Child molesting

This article is done, the result of the little NAMBLA thing. Users who wish to add updates can do so regarding criminal cases, what parents can do to help their children, etc. I kept the NAMBLA logo, for reasons which are explained in the picture caption; it alone speaks volumes against those people. Karajou 02:37, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's a tremendous effort, Karajou! Your new entry is invaluable to parents, teachers and others to protect children against this.
By the way, I thought the murderer of Polly Klaas escaped the death penalty when the jury sentenced him. Am I mistaken about that? I checked your cited source and did not find anything quickly about it.--Aschlafly 11:01, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
As far as I know, Davis is on death row. Should he be lucky to get life instead, he'd be a target for every other inmate in the system. Karajou 11:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Davis is on death row in San Quentin.[1]

More could be done to improve the article, such as making it more of a self-help guide by providing needed info, as well as making it informative as to just how despicable these offenders are. So anyone is welcome to add pertinent information. Karajou 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

## Bisexuality

Why was the article on Bisexuality deleted? It was a valuable, well written, properly sourced article which had the potential to develop into a very interesting piece. It was an awful lot better than the current page Bisexual which is far too short making it lack information and detail. I would like to see the original article returned (if thats possible) or at least an explanation. Cheers MatteeNeutra 09:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

## Deletions needed

Rawr_my_hiney, and many other nonsense articles created by the user who made that one.

Never mind, Terry took care of it. JoshuaZ 13:38, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

## Your opinion about the Noah edits

Regarding [2], the section in question referred to the wrong chapter in Genesis and got the entire story backwards. The other two sons covered Noah, Canaan and Ham did not. JoshuaZ 19:16, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Ham got his two brothers to walk backwards, covering their father's nakedness. Presumably, Noah cursed Ham because he was the troublemaker, he egged them on. --Ed Poor 19:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Ed, this is a unique view of the story. (At least one I've never encountered before). The classic interpretation in both Jewish and Christian sources is that Ham is punished for not doing anything and simply telling his brothers. His brothers did the right thing in covering their father. The walking backwards is because it was seen as disrespectful in most ancient middle eastern cultures to see someone while naked. In fact, some ancient Jewish sources go much farther and see Ham's actions as a euphemism for much worse behavior. See for example the commentary in Bereishit Rabbah 36. Some early Christian sources reach similar conclusions. In any event, the citation given that I removed was 16 chapters off from where in Genesis the event actually occurs. JoshuaZ 19:30, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Okay, if it's a unique interpretation than it should not be in the encyclopedia. Thanks for stopping me before I put nonsense in the article! :-) --Ed Poor 19:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

## Getting Google to build our website traffic - Part II

Dear Andy,

If we are going to get http://www.google.com to build our web traffic for us I think the article improvement drive we are engaging in is the answer and I think the article improvement drive should focus on serious subjects that have broad appeal. With that being said, I don't think it is enough for our specific World War I, World War II, Jesus, and Adolf Hitler articles to have quality. They must offer depth of information too. What do I mean by depth of information? What I mean is that they must have quality articles associated with them though the internal links, see also sections, and articles available though the Category tags.

I believe there are 5 ways to have lots of articles associated with the above topics (for example, WWI and WWII. The first is to have second, third, and fourth waves of article improvement using the main/front page (for example, have a article improvement drive for "Western front". The second is to have a article improvement page. The fourth is to make sure all the articles have category tags. The fifth is to send emails to groups that would be interested in building these articles.

Here is a email I sent the group whose webpage is http://www.worldwar1.com/ (World War I - Trenches on the Web):

Dear Mr. Hanlon,

I and some others are looking to build the most comprehensive WWI resource on the internet. The resource will be located at http://www.conservapedia.org If you could spread the news it would be appreciated as we are looking for volunteers.

What do you think of my idea? And if you like it, what steps are we going to take to achieve this goal?

Conservative 20:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Great ideas, Conservative!
My only reservation, and it is a minor one, is that I want our resource to remain concise like a real encyclopedia. Wikipedia made a big mistake by encouraging more and more words in an entry. Now many of their entries are too long to be useful as an easy reference. Here, let's use links rather than stuffing more into one entry. In fact, a recommended maximum length for entries might be a good idea. Anyway, God bless you for looking for ways to improve.--Aschlafly 20:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, that reservation can be overcome by having "See also" articles and lots of internal links and associated Category tag articles. For example, "See also" could have "Hitler and the occult". Conservative 20:44, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I think this would be the most logical first step to take in making Conservapedia a legitimate encyclopedia, as it's pretty much a laughingstock outside of our community. If we stuck to those articles and built them up, we could gain a whole lot of respect. --Hojimachongtalk 22:07, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, I think that Conservapedia is laughed at by non staunch conservatives in the West. By non-staunch conservatives I mean conservatives who are not conservative Christian conservatives. Anyways, I think that focusing on these serious subjects where some agreement can be made in regards to conservatives and liberals would be helpful. Perhaps, the Jesus article will erupt into a editing war that the panel will have to resolve but let us take one day at a time. Conservative 22:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
As to a word limit and comparison with WP, I'm glad Andy brought this up. Homophobia has been a very difficult article to clarify what the issues are, and I think we've done so on talk. However, adding more material now would make it look like a Wikipedia entry. In reading Homophobia, I am almost satisfied its complete as is, and clarifies what needs to be clarified, gives a good understanding of the term, how it came into existence, how it's been misused, and what the disputes are. Perhaps if Andy agrees, I'd like to nominate it for featured status, unless someone has something to add. RobS 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
The only people I've seen ridicule Conservapedia are liberals, who of course also ridiculed Ronald Reagan and many other conservatives who did a great deal of good. I have never heard a single conservative ridicule Conservapedia. Not that I mind mockery, but note how liberals overuse and over-rely on it.--Aschlafly 22:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
How about Tom Flanagan? Not everyone agrees, even those who come from the right.
"It looks like this outfit is far more guilty of the crime they're attributing to Wikipedia," says Tom Flanagan, professor of political science at the University of Calgary and both a fiscal and social conservative.
"I wouldn't use this thing at all."
He calls the examples of bias in Wikipedia cited by Conservapedia "quixotic and narrow."
"So somebody has found fault with a few dozen entries out of millions. So what, really!"
It's a tool for the religious, more so than the conservative, Flanagan argues. For instance, one of the most influential conservative thinkers, economist Frederich Hayek, is given thousands of words in Wikipedia but just a paragraph in Conservapedia. "If there was a liberal conspiracy, why a glowing article on Hayek?" Flanagan asks.
And, Flanagan points out, there isn't an article on prominent conservative writer and pundit David Frum, or on Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
After looking at the entry on kangaroos, Flanagan laughs, "This is loony tunes stuff."
Above from [3] --Mtur 13:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm confident that Tom Flanagan is not a real conservative, and have seen no evidence that he is. His criticism is a strawman used by a hostile news article.--Aschlafly 14:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no quarrel with any of the above plans. But for the moment, I intend to continue publishing my Bible history series, because that is my best area of expertise.--TerryHTalk 22:52, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

According to this article, it is Wikipedia's cross-linking structure that gives it such high ratings by Google, and so much traffic. If that were our goal, then it seems like we would need more cross-links, not more content.--Aschlafly 23:02, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Cross-linking, That is why I think it is critical that our WWI and WWII and Jesus articles have Category tags. Also, I think we should pick one major topic to focus on in order to get quicker results. I think it should be a non-contentious one and not be Jesus and I think WWII is a excellent candidate. I also think it is important to get veterans and war buffs involved via emails. This will increase our volunteer base. Conservative 23:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
90/10 rule: While some have been discussing strategy (which is important), I have humbly added another ten or so articles (I can't believe some of the stuff that is not on this site!)* and fifty or so links... I hope that helps a little.
• Check out the basic patriotic stuff! No National Anthem. I had to create Fourth of July and pledge of Allegiance! I had to create American Flag (a while back). I think that these sort of things would be expected on a pro-American, conservative site. Salute was another one. And my articles suck are of questionable quality until people fix them up (dang, I forgot to cat. them!). Anyhoo, I'm going to go move more clutter around (in my building) and then come back and try to do something about the travesty that is North America. Cheers! Human 23:11, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

One thing I've noticed is more and more junk cut and pasted from wiki mirrors and WP itself; an article improvement drive might help remove this stuff. We need our own research built from the ground up. RobS 23:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

That's alarming. Whenever any of us sees cut and paste from Wikipedia, let's immediately identify the editor who did it and warn or block that person and revert his other edits.
That article above about how 50% of Wikipedia's traffic is from Google is very interesting: Wikipedia lives at the pleasure of Google and the other search engines. I bet Wikipedia has relatively little "repeat customers" or people who go straight to it for info, rather than to the search engines. I think we do have many repeat customers who come to us first. Our foundation is built on rock; Wikipedia's is built on sand.--Aschlafly 23:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Alexa says that Wikipedia get 4.9 page views per user for a week average and we get 5.1. However, I think that a article improvement drive will boost our alexa numbers in this respect. I also think we need to put category tags on a whole bunch of our articles too. Conservative 23:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
There are roughly 1400 "dead end" articles on this site. That means they are not linked to anything. It's hard to keep someone clicking and reading when there is nowhere to go next. I added a bunch of links to some of them, I'd suggest it as good "light housekeeping" work for anyone. And make the articles better while doing it, many of these date back to the early days and are very short. Human 00:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Wow, that's a superb suggestion, Human! Can you post of a list of those "dead end" articles, or at least some of them, for others to help? I can improve a bunch but I don't know how to find them.
It's a wikimedia function - dead end pages is one of the many interesting lists at Special Pages - along with Wanted Pages (red links from existing articles, in decreasing order of number of links to them). You might want to put the links somewhere at the bottom of the main page? I'm not sure where busy editors go for inspiration here. Why can't I ever type anything without it sounding like a lame joke? Human 01:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Ask for Wikipedia's repeat traffic, I bet a substantial percentage of that is kids hurting themselves by becoming obsessed with obscenity. On our site, we have none of that.--Aschlafly 00:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I have a search page I made up for my browser to use - Google, for shopping, etc., WP for information, UP for laughs, CP for copious free time spending. Human 01:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

If I can give you a bit of history pertaining to this...

When General Grant took over the Army of the Potomac in 1864, he was reminded by his men of the sorry state of affairs that his men were giving him concerning the Confederates under Lee. "They're going to whoop us!" was the hew and cry. Grant put his foot down. "I don't want to hear anything about what Lee is going to do to us; worry about what we're going to do to Lee."
The same thing applies here. Let's not worry at all about Wikipedia. They're nothing as far as I'm concerned. Karajou 00:08, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for that, Karajou!--Aschlafly 00:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

## Here is something I put on the main page regarding getting google to build our web traffic

Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive Conservative 21:26, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

## Special pages

Human is correct: MediaWiki creates a lot of interesting special pages that I have seen people link to from time to time. Wanted pages is one.

I suggest creating a new project page for community discussion. Make this a "portal" to the rest of the project, and give it a link in the sidebar. On this page, put up links to the special pages that gather up all the red links, the dead-enders, the broken and double redirects, and anything else that would help editors truly interested in knowing what content is needed.

And while I'm on the subject: I always categorize every article that I submit. We ought to make that a hard-and-fast rule--and link to the special page for uncategorized pages to make the point: a category for everything and everything in at least one category.--TerryHTalk 09:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me add that categorizing, just like linking, has to be done intelligently. The best way is to look for a cat that exists. Just as when linking, check for similar phrases that already have articles. Yesterday I merged "flute" and "flutes", for instance. And also apologize, I often forget to categorize - but at least my articles are heavily interlinked with others, and luckily there are a few "cat hounds" who follow me around adding them. Which brings up a good reason to attract more editors. They don't have to create a zillion articles, many will have little "pet" things they do, like add links, correct typos, or categorize. The unsung heroes of a wiki project. Human 19:38, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

## Semantics

I see this has degenerated into to some people using the "N" word on MY talk page. Showing my disapproval, I deleted the entire discussion.

Folks, this illustrates why Conservapedia respects one's talk page. Please reread #11 in Differences with Wikipedia and rant somewhere else. Additional violations of that will result in blocking of accounts.

Thank you.--Aschlafly 15:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to clarify something for the users who contributed here. The First Amendment sets the government's powers as to regulating speech; it does not set the policy that private organizations can have about speech, nor does it protect the use of fighting words, nor does it govern what is called "responsible citizenship": one person's private & personal choice to abstain from making hateful remarks. The First Amendment protects you from the police, not the criticism of your peers. Just a clarification.-AmesGyo! 16:21, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I think you have it backwards: The First Amendment is generally taken as a limitation on the power of the federal government, rather than a grant of power. It's a negative, not a positive.
Freedom of speech does not come from the government; rather, the government recognizes that it has no right to take away that freedom - or the freedoms of press or religion. --Ed Poor 17:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I mean no disrespect, but the reason that most people (those who sincerely want to improve the encyclopedic aspects of this project) used the “n-word” was to illustrate how offensive the “f-word” (the one that began this debate) could be. I understand why you would get angry, and I have the impression that a few users probably enjoyed the opportunity to say the n-word. --1048247 17:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

## In case you missed it

I just wanted to point out that I put out a poll to see if people on here might accept me as a sysop. I know you aren't really looking right now, but it behooves me to mention that a number of editors, including some as trusted and trustworthy as Ed, have endorsed me here: [4] I do hope you will take a look and consider me for a more useful position in your project. Sincerely, Flippin 13:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

According to the block log, it says that you have been blocked three times. Why should you be a sysop when you can't obey the rules as they are right now. --AdrianP 14:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
If you look, my first two blocks were when I was still learning what this site was about. The first was for 1 minute, then I argued with Ed and got a ban of one week--which I served. My third ban was when I asked Ed to block me for two days so I wouldn't be tempted to come back here while I finished a project at my job. A much more mature decision, if you think about it. Subsequently, I think I have shown I can am mature enough and capable enough to do the job. Further, it would allow me to block users who vandalize the site. You might remember a few days ago I asked you to do it for me.
At any rate, I think I have shown only a hint of my true capability. I look forward to your reply. Again, I would direct you to the tally of votes on the unofficial page which does show that all my blocks--which came from Ed--were no deterrent to his vote for my sysopship. Sincerely, Flippin 14:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I shouldn't reveal this secret. They begged me not to. But the way to become a sysop is to start doing the sorts of things which sysops do.
And if you can't delete a page, recommend it for deletion. If you can't move a page, apply the {{move}} tag. If you can't block a user, report them at Conservapedia:Abuse.
When other sysops start following your recommendations, they will soon get tired of having to "chew the food twice" and will ask Mr. Schlafly to promote you. --Ed Poor 14:24, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

## Do you have an opinion

On whehter Watergate should be refered to as a scandal or an affair? RobS and I were working a little on the Nixon page and I wanted to see what you thought before I get to far into this one. Flippin 15:27, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I have an open mind about this (and everything else!). Perhaps "affair" is a more objective term, and thus the better one to use?--Aschlafly 15:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Will this be consistently used in all situations where either could be appropriate? --Mtur 16:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
This may become a case by case. Geo.Talk 16:19, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
It would be disappointing to see it be "affair" when its with people who are favored by the site bias and "scandal" when it is people who are not favored. It would also be confusing to users "Do I search for Watergate Affair and Whitewater Scandal?" I would suggest picking one and using it for all cases. --Mtur 16:24, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
As for "Do I search for Watergate Affair and Whitewater Scandal?" I would suggest creating one page and making a redirect from the other.--Mcpannier 17:29, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
The title of the main article would, hopefully, not have a bias as to how well liked/how embarrassing the issue it is to conservatives. If one is to be perceived as objective, consistency is a good thing. --Mtur 17:38, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm open to the consensus here, but it seems to me that "scandal" is a loaded term, while "affair" is more encyclopedic. "Scandal" is a function of publicity, which may or may not be honest and objective. I would suggest not using "scandal" unless one is emphasizing the publicity part of the issue and its effect on others.--Aschlafly 16:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I think you have to look at how they are used in the history of the event. Watergate is very often thought of as a scandal, and so is Whitewater. Monica Lewinsky would probably be more of an affair (no pun intended). I think Teapot Dome, on the other hand, is hard to classify as an Affair. Flippin 16:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
While I agree scandal is a bit of a loaded term and affair would also be correct to describe the events, I do not think affair is more encyclopedic. Scandal is defined as "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage," which the Watergate "affair/scandal" clearly fits. Thus, I am in favor of using Watergate Scandal as it is the generally accepted name for the shenanigans. ColinRtalk 16:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
"The next guy who says shenanigans..." I agree Colin. Couldn't resist the Super Troopers ref. Flippin 16:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
A search of New York Times articles whose "title" (whatever ProQuest means by "title") contains "Watergate scandal" yields 21 hits. "Watergate case, " 65. "Watergate affair," 11. "Watergate caper," 2. "Watergate mystery," 1. "Watergate whodunit," 1. "Watergate shenanigans," 0.
Personally, I propose just calling it "Watergate," since it has in fact entered the dictionary with the definition "NOUN: A series of scandals occurring during the Nixon adminstration in which members of the executive branch organized illegal political espionage against their perceived opponents and were charged with violation of the public trust, bribery, contempt of Congress, and attempted obstruction of justice" AHD, while Merriam-Webster believes it has reached the status of a generic word: "noun: Etymology: Watergate, apartment and office complex in Washington, D.C.; from the scandal following the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters there in 1972; a scandal usually involving abuses of office, skulduggery, and a cover-up."m-w. Dpbsmith 20:00, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Columbia Encyclopedia uses Watergate affair Dpbsmith 20:01, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Encarta uses just-plain Watergate Dpbsmith 20:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Alright, vindicated by the Columbia Encyclopedia!!!--Aschlafly 20:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, but Britannica thinks it's a scandal. Dpbsmith
"Vindicated?" is that really what you meant to say? Clearly scandal is going to be familiar to users and probably to a lesser extent affair. I suggest choosing one, but affair is more in line with the stated mission of this little gang. Flippin 09:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

## Dormant CC

Andy, a question for you about Haulers (2007 U.S. LEXIS 4746), the new SCOTUS case. Have you read the opinion? If so, is it correct to say that it overrules the market participant exception, making dormant CC legitimate only with regards to preference for local public organizations? Having trouble working it through: exam's in a week, kind of annoying to have to deal with new law obliterating 30p of the casebook.-AmesGyo! 17:37, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I've skimmed it. Roberts had only 4 votes for his balancing test. The case upheld the dormant, or negative, Commerce Clause, because the ordinance favored a governmental entity in removing waste.
The fifth vote was Scalia, who said, "It benefits a public entity performing a traditional local-government function and treats all private entities precisely the same way. "Disparate treatment constitutes discrimination only if the objects of the disparate treatment are, for the relevant purposes, similarly situated." Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 601 (1997) (SCALIA, J., dissenting). None of this Court's cases concludes that public entities and private entities are similarly situated for Commerce Clause purposes. To hold that they are "would broaden the negative Commerce Clause beyond its existing scope, and intrude on a regulatory sphere traditionally occupied by . . . the States."--Aschlafly 19:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Uh oh, I spoke too soon. Justice Alito in dissent says the majority is overturning a limitation on the market participant exception (get that? it's like a double negative). Justice Alito says, in dissent, that the towns "are doing exactly what the market-participant doctrine says they cannot: While acting as market participants by operating a fee-for-service business enterprise in an area in which there is an established interstate market, respondents are also regulating that market in a discriminatory manner and claiming that their special governmental status somehow insulates them from a dormant Commerce Clause challenge. See ibid. ... Today, however, the Court suggests, contrary to its prior holdings, that States can discriminate in favor of in-state interests while acting both as a market participant and as a market regulator." United Haulers Ass’n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Auth., 2007 U.S. LEXIS 4746 (Apr. 30, 2007) (Alito, J., dissenting)

So, to summarize (too many double negatives, huh?) the Dormant Commerce Clause prevents state regulation of the means of interstate commerce, even absent federal regulation in the same sphere. The market exception provides that, where acting as a participant in a market, the state may favor its own citizens. This most recent case upholds both, saying that the state's market participant exception is broader than has been previously held. Is that right? I can't imagine it'll be on the test - it'd be pretty nasty to test on caselaw from just the last week! - but it seems to be helpful in trying to understand the Clause altogether. Do I have it right? If not, I will have to reread my dormant CC materials!-AmesGyo! 22:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Your summary looks right. And, by the way, I've found that bar examiners do like to stress recent decisions for essay questions.--Aschlafly 22:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, the bar will, but our professor said she won't, and I quote: "if the Supreme Court does away with affirmative action between now and the exam... well, just for this exam, pretend that they didn't." She doesn't want to throw an hyperactive court docket at us, which I appreciate immensely.-AmesGyo! 22:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

## edittext

Watch out there are vandals on the loose Tennis Sweatshirt 20:08, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Did u get all there junk.

## Scottish Counties

I intend to flesh out the articles, but I find creating a list first easier, sorry if it's a problem.LateralQuercus 10:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, OK, that's fine then. Please proceed. Thanks.--Aschlafly 11:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

## Moronopedia

You may be interested in http://www.moronopedia.com which came up when I googled conservapedia. It seems to be aredirect to here; although I can't for the life of me see what the point of it would be.--OfficerDibble 10:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I can't replicate your Google search results. What did you search on? Moronopedia doesn't turn up in the first hundred hits on "Conservapedia" or on "www.conservapedia.com." Dpbsmith 12:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't see a point either. A self-portrait of its creators, perhaps? :-) --Aschlafly 11:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Get google associating moronopedia with CP, fork its content, then start vandalizing it. Google starts returning moronopedia results for CP queries. Tmtoulouse 11:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I can check our statistics for visits that reach us from "moronopedia" if you like. It will be less than 1 in 10,000, I'm sure. Somebody wasted his time and money setting up that site. But I don't mind and am amused by it. It's fascinating how liberals over-rely on mockery.--Aschlafly 11:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
It doesn't matter to me in the least, redirects from moronpedia won't tell you much, because people will not click on it to get here. The question is how is google ranking it relative to search strings involving conservapedia. A domain redirect is $5 a year, and 20 minutes of time. I have no idea who is involved or what their plan is, only offering a hypothesis. Also I promise the person involved is not living in my basement. Tmtoulouse 12:14, 1 May 2007 (EDT) Not that simple. The domain has to be purchased and set up, then discussed, etc. It's amusing to me how much time and expense liberals devote to mockery. At some point don't you think they'd want to get to the substance of the issues??? An essay on liberal over-reliance on mockery would be worthwhile.--Aschlafly 12:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT) mockery is for those who know are gonna lose. so they mock us. --Will N. 12:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT) its redirected to conservapedia. lol. never knew i was a moron --Will N. 11:52, 1 May 2007 (EDT) ## Liberals fooling other Liberals I've concluded that liberals have been fooling each other here. Not the first time. It was an imposter "Conservative" that posted the obscenties. Legitimate liberals, please realize that deceit is part of the liberal cause. Don't be fooled by it so much.--Aschlafly 13:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT) Don't worry - on behalf of the liberal majority I condemn these attacks. Is there any way of stopping these sorts of attacks? User:TimS noticed that they were using subscripted vowels, and redirects to your talk page. --Wikinterpretertalk? Speaking of deceit, the reason I am here, though I stayed for the blood bath, I am working on your entry over at wikipedia. Any hints on where to get some secondary sources? Can you recommend news organizations you have had a productive relationship with where I might find articles? Tmtoulouse 13:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT) Well, I might argue that liberals are not as big on self-deceit as conservatives, but that's for a debate page. One need only cruise over to Liberalpedia to see just how popular propaganda is on that site. Do they have 4 users or 5 now? Flippin 13:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT) • Ask my pal Tammy Bruce about the ability of Liberals to delude themselves! Tmtoulouse, not even Jimbo manages such self-flatulence, lol. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:09, 1 May 2007 (EDT) I'm pretty sure the purpose was to get Conservative de-sysopped. I've received a couple of semi-threatening messages on my talk page warning of attacks to the site if he doesn't lose his sysop status. Since we haven't given in to that, they're trying direct impersonation. DanH 14:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT) The whole thing was hilarious and very creative ... it took all of 2 seconds to realize it wasn't Conservative. I highly doubt it was only liberals who were fooled (and the history shows that). Jrssr5 14:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT) See how the liberal delights in deceit??? It's not just that the liberal viewpoint is more tolerant of deceit. It delights in deceit. It's also so much fun to fool people into supporting communism, abortion, gun control, evolution, an old earth and higher taxes!!!! Not here at Conservapedia.--Aschlafly 17:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT) Examples of bias in wikipedia #47. --Olly 17:43, 1 May 2007 (EDT) I can't believe anyone fell for it. When I saw what Conservative had written on my talk page, I never remotely considered the possibility of it being genuine. DanH 17:41, 1 May 2007 (EDT) ## Other Editors "We don't need retarded Scotland articles, do some articles on real places. Conservative 13:00, 1 May 2007 (EDT)" Do you think this is in any way justified? Again, imposter user. --Wikinterpretertalk? Shall I delete the whole paragraph? Sure, and thanks.--Aschlafly 14:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT) ## My double Did someone figure out my password or did they hack into the Conservapedia system? How did they post in my name? Conservative 16:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT) See my post here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse for the answer --Tim Smith 16:33, 1 May 2007 (EDT) No ... it was a clever job where they mimicked your name ... see here for the discussion Jrssr5 16:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT) The Unicode character set has a lot of characters which 'look like' other characters. One way for an English-only site like CP to deal with this would be to disallow non-ASCII characters in usernames. It looks like the AbortNewAccount hook in MediaWiki would be the right place to deal with this; see the 'docs/hooks.txt' file in the MediaWiki distribution for more information. in LocalSettings.php, you'd add something like: $wgHooks['AbortNewAccount'][] = 'asciiUsernamesOnly';
function asciiUsernamesOnly($user,$message) {
$validChars = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789_:";$name = $user->getName(); if (strspn($name, $validChars) != length($name)) {
\$message = "Invalid username";
return false;
}
return true;
}


I'm not a PHP programmer; this is untested; there's likely better ways to do the ascii-only check; I didn't put a whole lot of thought into what punctuation characters to include. But it's a starting point if you want to go down this path. --Jtl 17:18, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

## someone said the main page pic problem has been solved but it hasn't been

Someone said the main page pic problem has been solved but it hasn't been. It is still messed up. Conservative 19:22, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

at least the vulgar inappropriate image is goneBohdan
now its back!Bohdan

TK fixed it right before the old picture was reverted to. DanH 19:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

• All good now! Make sure all pics linked to the main page are always protected by a Sysop! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Aparantly there was a controversy over the "Chavez hugging Castro" pic. I reverted it back to the old Castro pic, but what exactly was the problem? Karajou 20:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Apparently it was vandalized, but quickly replaced and protected against future vandalism. The Chavez hugging Castro picture is OK now, so you can revert it.--Aschlafly 20:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
gotcha. Karajou 20:57, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

## Jesus article, please make sure it is left unprotected for a while

TK recently protected the Jesus article during the article improvement drive. I disagree because it the article is still not up to snuff. We need to get it up to snuff so it rises to the top of http://www.google.com eventually. I know TK has good intentions, but I don't think Jesus is going to fall off the throne if some tripe or vandalism is temporarily placed in the Jesus article. Conservative 19:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

• Sorry, Conservative, it needs to remain locked, maybe for a day. Yesterday someone replaced/added pics that were PORN. How hard is it to unlock for someone wanting to add material? Perhaps if you had seen the images added, you would be more understanding. We have had lots of porn replacing images, or added to pages last 24 hours or so. I suspect some of your new friends are responsible, btw. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:33, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
No problem. Conservative 19:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Can we take legal action? Conservative 19:50, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Maybe. We have the IP addresses of the people who did this, and there are strict federal laws concerning unwanted obscenity and pornography. Those laws are what prohibit sending someone unwanted pornography in the mails, for example, and the internet is not any different. We also warn users against posting obscenity here in our rules.--Aschlafly 19:52, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
My 2 cents ... Vandalism is always a concern, but sometimes just ignoring it and quietly reverting it will take away from the vandals fun. If an article is left unlocked long enough, they'll get bored with vandalizing it and move on. Might be a few times someone doesn't like what they see, but that's a risk you'd have to take. This is esp crucial if you want the article improvement drive to work. Jrssr5 21:00, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
In short, we should let the vandals get away with it, is that what you're saying? Karajou 21:01, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
• Ignoring evil, and wishing it will go away, has never worked. Not ever. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Karajou - you block the vandal and revert the vandalism. That's not letting them get away with it. TK - Vandalism does not equal evil. That's some peculiar rhetoric. Myk 21:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Myk, what's striking about your comments is a lack of any statement that vandalism is WRONG. See my essay about this and other liberal behavior here at Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia.
Of course, vandalism is wrong. I thought that went without saying. I was attempting to point out how leaving an article unlocked is more beneficial to the site than locking it. You all have the keys to the website, the vandals do not. Myk 21:58, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Myk, OK, fine. But with all due respect, it's a failure by some (not all) liberals to acknowledge and teach right and wrong that leads to wrongful behavior. I don't think it goes without saying that something is wrong, when surrounded by some (not all) liberals who don't even believe in right and wrong.--Aschlafly 22:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
That's a good point. Daily I get bombarded with hype how Bush is evil, yet the people who spoon feed me this stuff themselves reject the idea of evil. Makes no sense. RobS 22:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm curious - how do you know they reject the idea of evil? Strong moral relativism is not identical to being a liberal. --Mtur 22:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I think they more less tell you that -- they fail to condemn what is evil, then try to make beleive what is not evil is evil, which isn't hard to do since they don't beleive in it in the first place, couldn't recognize it anyway, and have no conscience about being deceptive. RobS 22:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Are you sure that it isn't just differing definitions of what is evil instead? There are some that consider kissing in public to be evil, there are others that consider destruction of the environment to be evil, others consider the loss of human life to be evil. Just because it doesn't fit your definition of evil does not mean that others do not consider it so. --Mtur 22:37, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
So you guys are saying that no conservative has ever done wrong? I find that very delusional. And I still think not giving the vandals the pleasure of a huge outcry will lead to them stopping. Jrssr5 22:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Visit a public school. Put your kids there. Look at the textbooks. The liberals running public school do not teach that anything is wrong. Case closed.--Aschlafly 22:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Is it the place of public schools to teach what is right and wrong? Or is that the place of parents? Is the school to be a substitute for proper parenting? --Mtur 22:50, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
In response to Jrssr5, of course no one is saying that no conservative has ever done wrong. What I'm saying, and no can seriously dispute, is that conservatives admit and teach right and wrong, but liberals do not.--Aschlafly 22:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Umm, sure, I seriously dispute that. I went to public schools and know right from wrong. In your words: "Case closed." Jrssr5 22:48, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I notice how you didn't say you learned right and wrong in public school. It's not there.
Look, I've learned from this site how liberals deny they are liberals and deny there is liberal bias. But there is no denying what's taught in public school. Open one of your textbooks and find a single reference to right and wrong. It's not there.--Aschlafly 22:57, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Some people believe it is wrong to mix dairy and meats in the same food item or wear clothing made out of linen and wool. Is that the proper thing to teach in public school? Others consider eating meat (beef in particular) to be a sin. Is this the proper thing to teach in public school? How could you teach all the possible systems of ethics in public school? --Mtur 23:01, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, that was back in the 1950s, when God was in the public schools, dress codes were enforced, the kids looked clean, and the worst things comitted in the halls was the bubblegum in their mouths. I think we should push legislation to return to that standard. Karajou 23:07, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Yeah Karajou, the '50s were great, blacks had their own bathrooms then too.</sarcasm> Maybe you should turn off Happy Days and come back to reality. In response to Andy, where does it say anywhere that it's the school's job to teach right from wrong? The schools should be educating you to make you ready for the real world and have the ability to get a job. Your parents should be teaching you right from wrong. Jrssr5 08:39, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I believe that this website has strict standards regarding right and wrong here, and they will be enforced, especially on the vandals whose recent activity caused this topic in the first place. Case closed. Karajou 22:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

## you might be interested

Mr. Schlafly, in leiu of recent conversations about liberal deciet and gay agenda, I thought you might find this interesting[5].(at least they had the decency to call off their "rally")Bohdan 23:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent. I'll put it up right now. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

## Protecting?

Mr. Schlafly why are you protecting all those pictures? --Will N. 10:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

## Vandalism recently

Mr. Schlafly i need you to fix my user talk page please. i dont know how to revert. --Will N. 10:32, 3 May 2007 (EDT)