Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly/Archive50"

Latest revision as of 18:42, June 14, 2021

Conservative foods

Mr. Schlafly, I noticed that you have a couple of lists up where you differentiate between things inspired by conservative and liberal ideals. I was wondering if you would mind if I started a similar article about food? I think a point could definitely be made that certain foods were inspired by or embody conservative ideals, like turkey or hamburgers, which represent family and American culture respectively. Do you think its a good idea? GeorgeSor 22:17, 12 December 2011 (EST)

No, I doubt this sort of entry would be worthwhile.--Andy Schlafly 22:56, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Relativity

All right--why aren't you responding on relativity debates? Not to be impatient but I've told you about this photons stuff and you haven't responded, you're not responding and yet you refuse to believe in photons... AndyFrankinson 20:25, 11 November 2011 (EST)

I'll take a look tonight. Obviously relativity is not the only topic on this site.--Andy Schlafly 21:59, 11 November 2011 (EST)

I'm still confused at how moral relativism is related to GR/SR... AndyFrankinson 20:35, 6 December 2011 (EST)

I'm trying to address the many problems with the Counterexamples to Relativity page on the Talk Page, but the SPAM filter won't allow be to save any changes. ~~csmcmillion

That talk page works now, so please do add your remarks there.--Andy Schlafly 21:42, 12 November 2011 (EST)

Edit ability removed at certain times

Hi Mr. Schlafly. Did you receive the email I sent to conservapedia@zoho.com about my ability to edit disappearing at certain intervals during the day/night? Is this a problem with my account? Since I have over 650 edits so far, I wouldn't think this is a glitch in Mediawiki's autoconfirmed users group, but I'm not entirely sure. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help fix the problem. Thank you! Kevin Davis ^Talk 19:00, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

Hi Mr. Schlafly. The same problem occurred last night, and I just want to make sure that there isn't anything I can do to help its solution. Thank you! Kevin Davis ^Talk 08:34, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

I'll look into this further. It should work fine for you at this time.--Andy Schlafly 10:12, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

May I add from my experience:

• there are certain periods of the day when ordinary users aren't allowed to edit Conservapedia, but only those of the group edit: Users with the edit tag are able to edit Conservapedia when night mode occurs (where editing is disabled for everyone except those with administrator or edit tags). Though these periods are somewhat irregular, they tend not to be an inconvenience for Americans with a sound sleep...
• when you perform too many edits (or even views?) in too short a time, you get blocked from even viewing Conservapedia for some time (a couple of hours?). This happened to me each time when I reverted vandalism and wasn't slowed down sufficiently enough by these annoying captchas. My solution to avoid this is to let the more senior editors handle the reverts.

AugustO 11:05, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

As to the first point, I wasn't aware of the edit group; although I'm not in that group (based on what my preferences' window shows) I've had the issue at various times of the day and morning as well, even around times like 8-9am. I don't think that's the problem. That doesn't fit with this a night time restriction. To the second point, that sounds similar to the connection problems I've had. I haven't seen a correlation between the issue and the number of the edits I make; it normally happens after a few minutes of viewing, whether or not I edit. I try to revert as much as I can, but since the viewing restriction normally activates, I can't finish cleaning up. Does any of this information help, Mr. Schlafly? Thanks! Kevin Davis ^Talk 15:35, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

Unanswered questions

• Do you have a scholarly source for the translation of ιδού as at that moment?
• Do you think that it is right to call Carolus Martellus the grandson of Carolus Magnus?
• Are we allowed to call them Charlemagne? Charles the Great? Karl der Große? Karl der Hammer? Charles Martel? Karl Martell?

AugustO 03:28, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible -- which is a "scholarly source" -- translates it as "at that moment" here. Also, simply search the internet for ιδού and "at that moment" and you'll see additional examples.

The more difficult question is this: why do you object so much to that rather straightforward translation?--Andy Schlafly 19:13, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

• Thanks for replying to my questions, it's nice not to be ignored all the time!
• And it's nice to see that the New Revised Standard Version becomes a reliable source the moment it seems to agree with you. Which it doesn't: As I wrote on April 8 on your talk-page:

The New International Version starts the verse with At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn.., but this at that moment seems to be a translation of the leading καὶ (in fact of the string of καὶ-καὶ-καὶ), while ἰδού is dropped from the sentence altogether - as you observed rightly in Bible Translation Issues.

• I'm able to draw such a distinction as I'm actually knowing my Greek.
• BTW: this is a nice example why it is important to archive these pages properly - it would have been nightmarish to find this quotation in the diffs, and impossible to do so if this page happened to be deleted.
• A translation is a scholarly source for the translation of ιδού as at that moment? That's a surprise: the annotations may be, but the translation itself isn't sufficient - as you see above.
• I'm really disappointed that you come up with the old canard simply search the internet for ιδού and "at that moment" and you'll see additional examples, while it was proven wrong over and over again. This is disturbing: it shows that you are willing to ignore factual evidence. Is this the sign of an open mind?
• So the real question is: Why are you ignoring any fact which doesn't agree with you?
• And again, you haven't answered the questions:
  • Do you think that it is right to call Carolus Martellus the grandson of Carolus Magnus?
  • Are we allowed to call them Charlemagne? Charles the Great? Karl der Große? Karl der Hammer? Charles Martel? Karl Martell?

Waiting with bated breath, yours AugustO 03:13, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

August, I find your comments to be a mixture of putdowns and preordained conclusions, rather than an open-minded discussion. Seriously, volunteer to do some charitable work somewhere instead. If you want me to respond to your postings, then try a more open-minded and less insulting style.--Andy Schlafly 15:09, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

You are providing me with a quite difficult task:

• When a question has to be repeatedly asked because it is answered insufficiently again and again, the questions tend to sound a little bit shrill.
• When you repeat your claim that I should simply search the internet for ιδού and "at that moment" and you'll see additional examples, while I have shown this to be wrong a couple of times, it is hard to describe this behavior without sounding uncivil. The first time, I thought you were joking when you came up with a google search as an argument. After a couple of times (and put downs) you now must be aware that you are repeating an incorrect statement. There is a very short word for such an act!
• Can the question whether Carolus Magnus was the grandfather of Carolus Martellus be discussed with an open-mind? Only for a very short period after which it is clear that this statement is wrong. Is there any justification to call such a statement right when correcting a home-work? No, we can only say that it was erroneously called right. Of course, we can discuss whether it is worse to write Martell or to mix up his ancestry!
• As for answering my questions: I would really appreciate if you would do so, not only to pamper me, but for the sake of your project. You argued that some of these questions were nitpicky, but I think that you agree that we can't be nitpicky enough when we try to translate the Bible!

AugustO 17:20, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

Request from a while back

I guess it was lost again in the archives, but I requested image uploading privileges a while back for my musician articles and helping out anyone who needed it. I know you're busy and probay have many other important priorities, but I would greatly appreciate it if you looked at this. Many thanks!--James Wilson 08:48, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

James, could you link to some examples of what you have in mind?--Andy Schlafly 15:12, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

Most certainly. Elvis Presley could use a few more images, and I would like to upload movie posters and stills as I develop Elvis Presley movies and related articles, as well as Billy Idol, Meat Loaf, etc. I would also like to help out with Conservapedia:Image upload requests. Many thanks, Mr. Schlafly!--James Wilson 15:45, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

Some examples of the images themselves would be this, this, and and this. Of course, there would be more.--James Wilson 16:09, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

I also will be creating more musician articles in the near future, as well as adding to the existing ones, and would also upload images for Bob Dylan, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, and many others. Most of the images I would get for articles would be from the Commons, per suggestion by Jpatt.--James Wilson 09:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Edit thing again

Hi Mr. Schlafly, in the middle of those reverts, editing was off for me. Granted it was less than ten minutes, but whatever triggers editing on and off seems to be messing up again. Thanks!--James Wilson 22:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I had a similar problem again today as well; if this is the result of a night-time editing restriction, is the server's time zone incorrectly configured? My problem occurred about 12 pm today (Central time) which clearly shouldn't be listed as night time anywhere in the US. Kevin Davis ^Talk 22:53, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Image upload

Hi Mr. Schlafly. Could this picture be uploaded for use in the Sharpe ratio article? Sharpe is an extremely important person in the field of finance, so I think it would make a great addition to the article. Kevin Davis ^Talk 23:00, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Can you find a better source, with more info and credits?--Andy Schlafly 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

I might work in finding a different image. In the grand scheme of things, an image might not actually be that important for this article. What's your opinion? Kevin Davis ^Talk 09:22, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Hello

I am having problems staying within the rules it would appear. User:Conservative refuses to leave feedback in his edit summaries. I am not sure how I am supposed to stay on the right side of the 90/10 rule if I keep having to jump to the talkpages to find out why I was reverted. JohnPaulJonesRevWar 09:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Caterpillar

Hi Mr. Schlafly. In my attempt to stall the user who was just blocked (User:Caterpillar) I left a message on his talk page. That page can safely be deleted now, I think. Thank you for the block! Kevin Davis ^Talk 08:53, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for deleting the page! Kevin Davis ^Talk 22:24, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Public Schools may be more conservative than you think

Hello, Andy. I am a public school student and I have my history textbook right in front of me, a textbook that is decidedly not liberal, nor atheistic as you claim public schools are. We're studying the European Industrial Revolution, and one person who lived in that time period was Charles Darwin. The textbook took some time to explain Darwin's theory of evolution, but introduced it by calling it "the most disturbing new idea..." Just as much time was dedicated to the initial negative reaction from Christians who believed that The Bible had the correct account of the origin of life, and to talk about Social Darwinism, which some thinkers used Darwin's theories to promote. (Darwin himself never promoted any social ideas) When I read the line "Social Darwinism encouraged racism", I knew something here at CP had to be cleared up. Immediately afterward, the textbook talks about Christianity in the same time period, and how Christians pushed for better conditions and started the Social Gospel, which urged Christians everywhere to social service. Not as much time is used to talk about that as was used to talk about Darwin and evolution, but the segment on Christianity, unlike the latter, was overwhelmingly positive, and it was paced at the end of the section to be the last thing the reader reads about. This is decidedly anti-liberal and anti-atheist. And this is coming from the agnostic (conservative) public school student. That is all. --SpenserL 20:38, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

Likely, one of those textbooks issued by conservative Texas.--Jpatt 20:44, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

A school district in New York issued these. --SpenserL 20:46, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

In general, it's better to look at trends in aggregate than specific, anecdotal examples. You may have one textbook that bears certain opinions, but that does not invalidate the idea that in general, history textbooks support a distinct world view. Kevin Davis ^Talk 22:25, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

"From my experiences, and those of my parents (both from the northeast) that world view appears to be Christianity. Fact is, when this country claims to be Christian, it walks the walk too. --SpenserL 21:23, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

Block of AugustO

Could you please lift the block of my account User:AugustO? The reasons can be found here. Thanks. ErnestO 13:45, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)

Now you must be aware of the ErnestO/AugustO situation. You seem to accept my contributions to Talk:Conservative_Bible_Project#Top_5_Bible_verses, and I enjoy such a debate. But somehow I fear the sword of Damocles over my sock. Could you please find a solution: Unblock AugustO springs to my mind :-) ErnestO 19:09, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Sysops generally do not unblock other Sysops' blocks. You should raise the issue with the Sysop who blocked you.--Andy Schlafly 22:51, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I raised the issue with User:Ed Poor (the sysop who blocked me) a day ago (see here), using this sock, as the email channels (which I tried earlier) don't seem to work. ErnestO 07:53, 27 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)

The block of AugustO is now more than a week old. Ed Poor hasn't reacted to various attempts to contact him. So, could you do something about the block? Thanks. ErnestO 11:11, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Pro life news story

Hi Mr. Schafly. I found this article earlier today. Is this the sort of item that you place on the front page? Kevin Davis ^Talk 14:28, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Pro-life stories are the "sort of item" we post, but that's not a story worth posting. Our standards are high and we don't promote gimmicks.--Andy Schlafly 16:04, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Could you elaborate on your point, please? As an opponent of abortion, I'm of the opinion that any victory would be a positive, even if promoting a fertilized egg as a person is a bit of a gimmick. Life begins at conception, which is when the egg is fertilized. Kevin Davis ^Talk 17:15, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Gimmicks are often not helpful, and the personhood referenda have actually been quite hurtful. In Colorado they lost by more than 70% of the vote, twice, and dragged down some terrific pro-life candidates to defeat.--Andy Schlafly 22:10, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

I understand the purpose, because as I said before, life begins at conception. Therefore, the concept is sound, but unfortunately it's not the best way to prevent abortions. I'm of the opinion that overturning Roe v. Wade would be a more logical step. Do you have an opinion? Kevin Davis ^Talk 22:23, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Image upload privileges request

I don't know if you saw it, but I answered your question asking what I would do, a few posts above. I just ask since it's been a while and I didn't get a reply. Many thanks!--James Wilson 12:30, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

James, sorry for the delay, but your request does not lend itself to a quick answer. One problem is that you're suggesting material that is not particularly encyclopedic or educational or otherwise enlightening. Please don't take offense at that, but pop "stars" are not all that helpful, at least not to learning or (in general) as role models either.--Andy Schlafly 22:09, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Ah, I understand completely. Perhaps I will add some content that fits the mold of "educational" as well, such as articles on the history of Michigan and such instead of focusing solely on the musician articles. I was not intending to do the musician articles solely, but I indeed will add that content soon. Many thanks!--James Wilson 22:19, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Email

Mr. Schlafly, Did you receive the email I sent to conservapedia@zoho.com? I asked that you respond, so I want to make sure that you did receive it. Thank you. Kevin Davis ^Talk 14:12, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly. I assume that you did not receive the email? Could you please send me another email address that is checked so I can respond to these issues in private? Thank you. Kevin Davis ^Talk 12:46, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Articles

Hello, Mr. Schlafly. I understand your point on the musician articles not really being of educational value. I do feel Elvis Presley is, however, since he has become as much of a historical figure as a musical one. Now, since this website is indeed not Wikipedia and avoids that sort of popular culture bloat, I wonder if an expansion of the content on the history of Michigan would be of value to the site? I have already sarted articles on the Treaty of Saginaw, former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, and the Constitution of Michigan. I was thinking of adding articles on the governors, treaties, the copper and lumber industires, the Sweet trial, and others. Would these be of value to Conservapedia, at least more so than the music articles? I have also taken a course on Michigan history at a college. Many thanks, Mr. Schlafly!--James Wilson 12:38, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Warming

I thought "global warming" means that the average air temperature increases significantly, but some AGW supporters are saying it causes warmer summers and colder winters. Sounds a bit Orwellian to me. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:13, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

World History Homework

Dear Andy,

You'll forgive me for not using a more formal mode of address, considering your impolite recent activity. I'll also keep this rejoinder short, as I suspect that reacting to the attempted Conservapedia coup d'etat over your Conservative Bible Project must be a strain on your time.

Recently, I posted a list of fifteen errors you had made while marking the homework for World History Lecture Five. Your response to this was to call your students' concerns "nitpicky". When I and other students pressed you on your lack of a more substantial response, and following your increasing curtness, unprofessionalism, and demonstrations of a breathtaking contempt for the students that you are supposed to teach, you blocked me for a week and attempted to delete all evidence of student concerns. Bravo on your academic prowess, Mr Schlafly. There really is no finer way to show courtesy, professionalism, and respect for your students than by dismissing, deleting, and blocking them.

It is noticeable that since the incident, your World History classes appear to have ground to a halt. The homework for Lecture Six was utterly pointless - as evidenced by the extremely poor turn-in rate - while your latest exam is a shockingly poor attempt to grade our knowledge. It is noticeable that at the top of the Midterm Exam, you write that no marks will be subtracted for wrong answers. The only logical outcome of this is that every submitted exam will receive 100%. What is the point of this?

In your articles on professor values and the liberal elite, you make a number of criticisms of poor teaching styles, grade inflation, and the apparent ineptitude and contemptuous arrogance of academics. Perhaps you would do well to remember the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:4-5 and Luke 6:42: "Why do you notice the speck of dust in your brother's eye? How dare you say to your brother "Remove the dust from your eye" when you have a log in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the log from your own eye, then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's."

It is clear from your dismissive attitude and air of disdain towards your students that you have no intention of admitting your errors, correcting your mistakes, or improving the quality of your homework assignments. Perhaps you consider Pride to be a greater grace than Humility. This would explain your equally disdainful attitude towards concerns surrounding your Conservative Bible Project. Yet your utter refusal to amend, correct, or even admit that you made a mistake in the first place, is causing you harm. If you had simply acknowledged your errors and oversights, apologised, and amended them, then the whole issue would have died down on the same day it was raised. But instead you have drawn far more attention to yourself - and your appalling lack of academic professionalism and personal politeness - by ignoring your students, attempting to burn the evidence, and blocking anyone who questions you. And this is not restricted to the World History Lectures. Your prideful ignorance of concerns, and your breathtakingly rude attitude, are causing your loyal sysops to withdraw from a Conservapedia increasingly dominated by family-unfriendly smut articles, while your closest lieutenant has made your crass errors and self-serving arrogance over the Conservative Bible Project a subject of increasing public embarrasment for you.

If you wish Conservapedia to become a useful resource, rather than a shrinking forum for you to flaunt your sullen pride and uncharitable contempt, perhaps you could do your own students the courtesy of actually acknowledging and responding to their concerns, rather than simply deleting the issues and blocking your own students in a backfired attempt to conceal your baleful pride.

We, your students, look forward to each receiving 100% on the Midterm Exam, in accordance with your assurance that there will be "No penalty for wrong answers."

Yours,

RexBanner 14:49, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

Rex, the teacher runs a class, not a student. The midterm exam is posted.--Andy Schlafly 15:29, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

Rex, the Bible is a best selling family friendly work and mentioned the topic in question 4 separate times. Second, the articles used respected news and conservative websites as sources and for quote purposes. Next time you wish to accuse someone for posting smut, you should consider being accurate and fair minded. In addition, I posted some material at this website because the wiki software made it easy. Plus, I have done some anti-vandal volunteer work. I really don't consider myself to be some "lieutenant" or assistant in some wiki war. I just posted the articles at this wiki as a public service. By the way, you should consider using Firefox as a browser as it has a spell checker. You misspelled the word embarrassment. Since you seem to appreciate and long for the "red pen", I thought I would point this misspelling out to you. Conservative 07:32, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

Edit thing.... again?

Sorry to bug you again about this, Mr. Schlafly, but the edit thing went out again yesterday afternoon and this morning. Many thanks if you could look into this!--James Wilson 12:38, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

It's been working fine the past two days for me now, but I wonder what makes it go off like that at all?--James Wilson 13:44, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

I've had the same problem a few times in the last couple of days as well. Did you receive my email, Mr. Schlafly? I asked about it above, but since it may get lost in the talk page, I wanted to post about it again in this (more recent) section. Thank you! Kevin Davis ^Talk 15:58, 6 November 2011 (EST)

The same thing that should be turning it off around midnight EST, the edit group exists for a reason--SeanS 18:26, 6 November 2011 (EST)

No, we're not talking about the nighttime shutdown. We're talking about it being shut down in the middle of the day. Also, Sean, what's the "edit" group?--James Wilson 19:07, 6 November 2011 (EST)

Repeat offenders are making "Catholicism" article derogatory

Please come to Talk:Roman Catholic Church and for more information. -danq 21:55, 6 November 2011 (EST)

My Two Cents

I've been a member of Conservapedia for over 3 years. I have over 1,000 edits. I have created numerous articles, all of which are well-cited, well-written and correctly formatted. I have tried for a very long time to keep my mouth shut, but I honestly can't any more.

This site has turned into a laughing stock. You have one of your Admins going around creating ridiculous essays with one picture, a caption and some moronic dialog to it? This is the alternative to Wikipedia that we aim for? Is it supposed to be funny? I haven't seen you lobby to have any of them removed so obviously you feel as though they are important to the site for reasons completely beyond me. You've lost Dan, Tim and Phillip who were all great contributors to the site and replaced them with parodists who do nothing but sit and laugh at everything they have written, and then cackle when you put your seal of approval on top of it. JPatt and EdPoor seem to be the only active sysops who are actually genuine.

I've never once lied about my beliefs or values on here. You know that I'm not as conservative as some people here, and you know that I'm not a Christian, and yet I've still put a lot of work into this site ... and for what? To have it mocked due to ignorance and parody? Well no more.

Put the hammer down, Andy. Take your project and put it back on the right path.

--Jeff W. Lauttamus_Discussion 11:33, 7 November 2011 (EST)

JLauttamus, I do like to see people create educational content at Conservapedia. At the same time, the foolish ideologies of atheism and evolutionism not only deserve to be satirized and mocked, but they deserved to be crushed. The Question evolution! campaign is a an excellent grassroots campaign to aggressively decimate adherence to the deceitful and foolhardy fables of atheists such as evolutionism, abiogenesis, "little green alien life forms", etc. etc. And the evolutionists usual bag of tricks will not be able to stop it. Conservative 12:03, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Actually (and unfortunately), JLauttamus, I found little of substance in your contribution history here for the past six months. And your reference to only two active sysops being "actually genuine" is not correct.

This site continues to grow and educate. Unlike many other wikis, this site actually teaches people, and does so without atheistic censorship. As with Christianity, conservatism, and almost anything else of value, some people seem to enjoy leaving, and Parthian shots are familiar.

I hope you can reconsider because I've enjoyed discussing issues with you here. But if not, all the best to you.--Andy Schlafly 12:34, 7 November 2011 (EST)

You're right, I haven't been contributing very much as of late, and even if I were to reconsider, it wouldn't make much of an impact. You're also right that this site teaches people a lot of different things; the articles relating to origins theory — the ones pertaining to ID and YEC, at least (like this one, check the history) — are probably some of the most comprehensive out there. I wish only the best for this site, and while I haven't contributed for a while, I have still followed it as closely as I can. Take it as a Parthian shot if you'd like, I would just like to see you reel in some of the non-educational material that has absolutely no substance.

And Conservative, your little essays don't do anything to help "aggressively decimate adherence to the deceitful and foolhardy fables of atheists", they make the opposition to atheists appear just plain silly. The best way to attack this is with knowledge and science, not by making jokes about atheist doctors and fat people. -- Jeff W. Lauttamus_Discussion 14:00, 7 November 2011 (EST)

JLauttamus, if you as an atheist want to achieve some sort of "victory" through misquotation, that just provides further evidence that atheists are fools. Second, I understand that many proud atheists are going to be upset about the satires. I can live with that. For all their mocking, atheists certainly have thin skins when it comes to comedy and satire. It has been said that their father has a thin skin as well. "The Devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked." - Thomas More. Feel free to engage in last wordism at this point. Conservative 21:10, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Then my last word will be thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinions. I wish you both the best, and I hope to see this site continue to grow. Good luck to both of you. -- Jeff W. Lauttamus_Discussion 08:52, 8 November 2011 (EST)

I appreciate your comments. In response to your more substantive comment above, I wonder whether you would leave a library because you disagreed with, or even disapproved of, some of the books on the shelves.

Speaking generally now and not in reference to any specific individual, I think there is something more profound about an adamant departure from conservatism, Christianity, churches, this website, a private school, etc., which seems to entail more than an everyday difference in opinion. My impression is that a more fundamental choice is involved.--Andy Schlafly 21:54, 10 November 2011 (EST)

Re: Congratulations

Thanks Mr. Schlafly, I'll make sure you won't regret it! - Markman 16:46, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Thank you.

Thank you for upgrading my user rights. DavidE 19:40, 7 November 2011 (EST)

If you wouldn't mind

Could you take away my block rights, as I'm retiring from cp completely now. Thank you for your time and Good luck..--SeanS 21:57, 9 November 2011 (EST)

Nation state

There seems to be some trouble with the term nation state: while the article on nation state seems to be spot-on, the definition in World History Study Guide from 1648 is troubling:

A country in Europe governed by a monarch. These began to develop in the 1400s the largest Three being England, France and Spain

A good working definition is given by the Merriam Webster dictionary: a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state; especially : a state containing one as opposed to several nationalities

So a nation state isn't just a European monarchy: France didn't cease to be a nation state in 1789 and Prussia never was one (it encompassed only a part of the German nation, but included most of the time considerable parts of the Polish nation). And Japan is most certainly a nation state!

As a result of this wrong definition, some Homeworks give wrong answers:

• A few of these nation-states include: England, France, Spain, Portugal and Prussia. isn't an excellent answer, as Prussia is included.
• The Holy Roman Empire was a great example of the nation states. Absolutely not correct: it included at various times quite a couple of nations: Bohemia, the Netherlands, etc.

AugustO 02:12, 10 November 2011 (EST)

Excellent points. Thanks and I'll go back and check the homework answers again.--Andy Schlafly 10:00, 10 November 2011 (EST)

Great! At the moment, every single student who chose to answer question five of homework eight ("What were the nation-states? Give an example as part of your answer.") publicly gave a wrong example:

• Student 2: England, France, Spain, Portugal and Prussia.
• Student 3: Holy Roman Empire
• Student 4: Russia
• Student 9: No example, but the following absolutely wrong statements: Nation-states were independent entities that arose due to the states being governed by external religious leaders. These nation-states gave rise to the Thirty Years War in Europe. Nation-states arose especially after the French Revolution in France when the common people rebelled against the aristocrats. But perhaps France is meant to be the example - that would be right, just the time period, the reasoning, and plural is wrong.

To get the answers wrong so consistently, it seems that there is a common source for the misinformation. I understand that you are reluctant to change your grading, but you should at least inform the pupils that they misunderstood this historically important concept. Otherwise they are doomed to perpetuate their errors.

Thanks, AugustO 03:02, 11 November 2011 (EST)

Please explain further your objections to the answers by Students 2 and 4.--Andy Schlafly 12:06, 11 November 2011 (EST)

Prussia contained people of at least two nationalities--Germans and Poles, and many Germans lived outside of Prussia's borders. Similarly, Russia was an empire containing many, many different nationalities ruled from Moscow, not a state that shared a common language and customs. ScottDG 12:17, 11 November 2011 (EST)

Student 2: As I stated earlier, Prussia was never a nation state: there just isn't a Prussian nation. In 1871, it became part of the nation state of Germany.

Student 4: a multi-ethnic empire like the Czarist Russia is a classical example for a non-national state.

AugustO 12:19, 11 November 2011 (EST)

The term "nation-state" seems to be an obvious extension of the "city-state", and I didn't think the ethnic diversity (or lack thereof) of the residents had anything to do with it.--Andy Schlafly 12:37, 11 November 2011 (EST)

Do you have any sort of citation for that? You're pretty much going against all of the political science literature on the term as it's commonly used. ScottDG 12:46, 11 November 2011 (EST)

The term "nation-state" seems to be an obvious extension of the "city-state" That's just your opinion, not a definition. The concept of a nation-state is used in the historical sciences and you are doing your pupils a disservice if you redefine it out of a whim.

I didn't think the ethnic diversity (or lack thereof) of the residents had anything to do with it. You may want to look up the concept of irredenta.

AugustO 12:55, 11 November 2011 (EST)

Folks, If you want to discuss this in an informative manner, then please be substantive.

Do you define "nation-state" in terms of ethnicity? What is your definition of the term?--Andy Schlafly 13:05, 11 November 2011 (EST)

You might start with Conservapedia's article on the nation-state, which defines it as "state that encompasses the territory inhabited by a self-identified nation, or culturally similar people." That's pretty much spot-on, at least enough for high-school students to know. Of course, I can't imagine that any intellectual who's interested in these sorts of questions hasn't read Anderson's Imagined Communities, so you might want to review that; as you'll no doubt recall, he has a pretty substantive discussion of what the nation state is and what forces were at work as it developed. ScottDG 13:14, 11 November 2011 (EST)

Earlier, I gave the definition of the Merriam Webster: ''a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state; especially : a state containing one as opposed to several nationalities

Citizendium: Nation-state is a term describing a political unit with ultimate sovereignty and large group of people who are bounded together because of their common culture, in particular, a common language (Shively, W.P. Power & Choice.New York: McGraw Hill Companies, 2005.)

Hope that helps. AugustO 13:10, 11 November 2011 (EST)

You don't relate it to the "city-state", and particularly unhelpful is the circular definition (using the vague term "nationalities" - is that ethnicity?).

Under your definitions, was the United States a "nation-state" in the 20th century?--Andy Schlafly 13:44, 11 November 2011 (EST)

As I understand it, the term "nation state" is in opposition to a "territorial state". You are a subject of a territorial state because you happen to live in that territory. You can move to another territory and acquire citizenship there, then you're subject of another state. The city state is a good example of a territorial state (the nation was Greece, the state was Athens). A nation state is defined by the people who form the state; people who perceive themselves as a unity due to language, ethnicity or culture (you were born as a member of a nation (the term comes from the Latin word for "being born")). A nation state unites a nation as a political entity. Prussia was not a nation state because the perceived nation was Germany; Prussians, as well as Bavarians, Suabians, etc., were considered tribes within the German nation. The grand theme of the 19th century was the unification of Germany as a nation state, and similarly in Italy. Russia was not a nation state because the state encompassed peoples other than Russians, peoples who did not consider themselves part of the Russian nation, although part of the Russian state. The US is interesting in that respect. I guess it can be called a nation state, but not a nation by virtue of language, certainly not of ethnicity, but a nation by choice, by allegiance ("one nation under God"). The binding element in the US is the Constitution. --FrederickT3 14:28, 11 November 2011 (EST)

• You don't relate it to the "city-state" Why should I? I didn't redefine a nation-state as an extension of a city-state. It isn't.
• particularly unhelpful is the circular definition (using the vague term "nationalities" - is that ethnicity?). The concept of a nation or nationality is a little bit fuzzy (as so often with real-live entities). But Conservapedia has a good definition, which should work for a high-school course: nation
• Under your definitions, was the United States a "nation-state" in the 20th century? a little bit fuzzy, again, you can argue for both cases, depending on your interpretation of a relatively homogeneous people. But that neither Prussia nor the Czarist Russia was a nation-state, that seems to be consensus under historians.

AugustO 15:09, 11 November 2011 (EST)

I think "nation-state" embodies, first and foremost, a common foundation of patriotism. I don't think it should be defined in terms of ethnicity. If Prussia does not qualify, then it would primarily be because it was only part of a larger nation-state that was to follow (Germany).--Andy Schlafly 00:11, 12 November 2011 (EST)

Well, the case of the Russian empire--Student 4 above-- still doesn't count under your own definition. The Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, etc etc. etc. hardly had a patriotic love for the Czars or the empire. ScottDG 00:17, 12 November 2011 (EST)

• Nation-state is a term which is used in the historical sciences. Could you give a scholarly source which defines it the way your think it should be defined?
• How is it sensible to use the term in a way that your pupils will answer questions about a nation-state wrongly in any test but yours?

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!” (L. Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass)

AugustO 01:59, 12 November 2011 (EST)

We can discuss at length the finer points of the definition of nation, state, territorial state, city state etc. Nevertheless some facts remain:

• A country in Europe governed by a monarch is a wrong definition of a nation-state as it isn't used this way in any course at a university or a college.
• The term "nation-state" seems to be an obvious extension of the "city-state" is likewise wrong - it's as wrong as hearing your math-teacher saying: the term "eigenvector" seems to be an obvious extension of the "eigenvalue".
• In colleges and universities you'll find definitions like this one:

nation-state: A sovereign state that generally coincides with, or aspires to coincide with, a single national community or nation. A state, on the other hand, may also be multinational, for example, an empire.San Diego State University.

• Any definition which allows for the Czarist Russia, Prussia or the Holy Roman Empire to be a nation-state won't be taken serious at any university or college.
• if you grade answers as excellent or correct which include Czarist Russia, Prussia or the Holy Roman Empire as examples for a nation-state, you should explain to your pupils that you are using an idiosyncratic definition of the term nation-state which won't be accepted by mainstream historical sciences: otherwise they are in for a disappointment if they ever chose to take a history-exam at a college or a university.
• I made this clear at User talk:History, User talk:AranM and User talk:Whistory.
• You may stick to your idea of a nation-state, but please accept that the rest of the scientific world uses another concept. And you should ask yourself what is better for your pupils: to understand your concepts of world-history, or being able to communicate with historians in their language by using more common definitions.

AugustO 11:11, 13 November 2011 (EST)

August, after a few days' reflection I think Aschlafly's insights on the matter are logical and sound; the nation-state is an obvious and logical outgrowth of the city-state, working on a larger scale; moreover, ideas like shared language, culture, religion, and collective identity that are central to the divisive and selfish liberal notions about what a "nation" is are less important than a shared love of country, which was obviously the case among the Ukraninans, Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Finns, Estonians, Belorussians, Georgians, Kazaks, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, and other peoples who all shared a sense of loyalty to the czar and Moscow. Open your mind--we should be trying to do better than to accommodate liberal state schools and professor values here. ScottDG 11:36, 13 November 2011 (EST)

August, the "rest of the scientific world uses an other concept" (emphasis added)?? I didn't think this issue was a matter of science!

I am reluctant to exaggerate the significance of ethnicity in connection with the concept of a "nation-state". The term is not "ethnic-state".--Andy Schlafly 22:32, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Please, just stop splitting words:

• Science as in historical science. It isn't a dancing class, is it?
• an acute observer may have spotted how the modern definitions try to avoid the term ethnic. Conservapedia writes about a self-identified nation, or culturally similar people, Merriam-Webster uses a relatively homogeneous people, SDSU a single national community or nation. And still, Prussia, the Czarist Russia and the Holy Roman Empire are not included...
• the term was created in the early 20th century, the definition gradually modernized. You don't have to exaggerate the significance of ethnicity, you just have to observe that an obviously multi-ethnic state, a state made up by various peoples with different cultures, etc., isn't a nation-state.

AugustO 23:56, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Is there a point to be made here about biblical foreknowledge? We all agree that the term and concept of "nation state" as understood by modern historians were crystallised in the last hundred years or so. Yet the state of Israel, which is clearly a nation state, has its roots in the Old Testament text written thousands of years before.--CPalmer 08:40, 14 November 2011 (EST)

That's a fascinating insight! I'll add it to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge.--Andy Schlafly 23:10, 18 November 2011 (EST)

User:AugustO: "Prussia was never a nation state: there just isn't a Prussian nation." But the New World Encyclopedia states, in its entry on "nation-state," "Frederick the Great (Frederick II of Prussia 1740 - 1786) is frequently cited as one of the originators of modern state bureaucracy." [1]

Please read your sources more carefully: the article never claims that Prussia was a nation-state. The section from which you quote (just below the statement The nation-state implies that a state and a nation coincide) it is only said that a efficient state bureaucracy is an impetus for a modern state, and that such state bureaucracies were only developed in the 18th century, at first in Prussia.

Later on, we read:

Frederick the Great (1712–1786) expanded Prussia from obscurity among fellow nations to become foremost military power in Europe. He also laid the foundation for the eventual union of the German princely states, which would enable Germany to emerge as a major world power at the start of the twentieth century. Frederick's bureaucratic reforms made the Prussian civil service more efficient, methodical and hard working and also conscious of its public duty. He also introduced a system of primary education, and codified the law. This would become the basis of the future German state, and Prussian identity, which valued military prowess, owed a lot to Frederick's own military successes. This later became linked with the German sense of national superiority and of imperial destiny that contributed significantly to the causes of the two world wars.

Here, Prussia is seen described the precursor of the German nation-state, but again, not at a nation-state itself.

AugustO 00:04, 19 November 2011 (EST)

The encyclopedia is very clear that Prussia was a state -- indeed, the originator of the "state" -- and also a nation -- it rose "from obscurity among fellow nations." It is presented in the entry as the quintessential nation-state, and as even the founder of the model.--Andy Schlafly 00:22, 19 November 2011 (EST)

Prussia - the quintessential nation-state: you are up to something new here - as I said repeatedly, even Prussia was a nation-state is something you won't find taught in any course on history at a college or a university.

Please think about which entities the author of the article meant when writing about Prussia's fellow nations, and you will see that here it is used only in the sense of fellow countries. (I don't think that the article is well written)

AugustO 00:47, 19 November 2011 (EST)

And no "course on history at a college or a university" teaches that Ronald Reagan was a great president, which of course proves absolutely nothing. Logic is not valued among college professors, and bias is pervasive. They care more about what fellow liberals think than what the truth is.

The encyclopedia is insightful and spot on. Not only was Prussia a nation-state, it was the originator of it. That it later expanded to become Germany says nothing about what it was beforehand. The United States originally had 13 states, and now it has 50. It has been a nation-state throughout.--Andy Schlafly 01:01, 19 November 2011 (EST)

• There is a difference between a commonly used definition and a value judgment: historians will agree that Prussia wasn't a nation-state, but they may disagree whether Ronald Reagan was a great president.

• If you want to prepare your pupils for university and college, you should use widely accepted definitions, or at least state explicitly where you are using you self-made ones.

• Not only was Prussia a nation-state, it was the originator of it. This is an enormously erroneous statement. User:Conservative wrote: In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. But please, reflect on your claim, reconsider it, open your mind and admit (at least to yourself) that you are wrong.

AugustO 02:02, 19 November 2011 (EST)

BTW, your current confusion seems to stem from the mix-up of the definitions of nation, here quoted according to the Merriam Webster:

a : nationality [...]

b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government

c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status

Prussia was a nation, as it was a a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status but the inhabitants of Prussia didn't see themselves as a having a common nationality: a citizen of Hanover in 1867 would have described as a Hanoverian and a German, but not at a Prussian. Hope that helps! AugustO 02:24, 19 November 2011 (EST)

Liberal historians who dominate academic departments are in agreement that Ronald Reagan was somehow NOT a great president. What does that mean? Nothing, other than an illustration of academic bias is that so rampant that it can hardly be disputed.

Logic is what matters here, not liberal consensus.--Andy Schlafly 11:25, 19 November 2011 (EST)

Well, logic tells me that Prussia was not a nation state because Prussians were part of the German nation, not a nation in themselves. I'm sorry, but your arguments are not convincing. --FrederickT3 12:35, 19 November 2011 (EST)

@Aschlafly: As a Scot, I would take issue with your claim that Prussia was the first nation state. That claim is often made for Scotland, some five centuries before Prussia. The Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 gained Scotland independence from England after nearly 400 years and more significantly the subsequent Declaration of Arbroath in 1320 set out Scotland's right to be regarded as an independent, sovereign state with the right to defend itself. Scotland was probably the first state in Europe to be defined by national sentiment and territorial integrity. I would say the only competitor for the title would be Portugal, around the same point in history. HollyS 12:39, 19 November 2011 (EST)

I try to explain this step by step, pleas bear with me.

Logic is what matters here, not liberal consensus Before you can apply your logical reasoning, you have to come forth with a definition. We are not in maths, so we expect a good definitions to work most of the times for most of the cases. Take for instance the term European country. There are various definitions out there, according to one Georgia may be an European country, according to another it won't. But all will agree that Spain and Austria are European countries. Coming up with a definition which excludes one of those isn't sensible, there is a consensus which helps us to understand each other.

Take the definition(s) for nation-state. Over the last century, there emerged an consensus what this term means - it isn't a sudden invention of liberals over the last decades, it was there during more conservative times and is used in conservative organizations. Again, the logical application of various definitions may give different results in some fringe cases, but all of them will agree that Prussia, the tsarist Russian, and the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation (despite its name) weren't nation-states. Again, inventing a new definition which contradicts this century-old consensus is absurd, and it's detrimental to your pupils.

OTOH, you won't find a consensus for the definition of good president: this changes over time and from place to place. Feel free to make your own one, as long as you explain your criteria.

BTW: have a look here. AugustO 11:33, 20 November 2011 (EST)

Editing

Mr. Schlafly, it seems I was not able to edit. I was going to revert the vandalism after blocking that user, but the editing was shut down. Someone in one of the threads above mentioned the "edit" group. May I ask if I can join this group? It would be a major convenience in reverting vandalism and editing. Thanks!--James Wilson 09:12, 11 November 2011 (EST)

Addendum: Same case this morning when trying to revert vandalism after blocking user.--James Wilson 08:53, 12 November 2011 (EST)

Addendum: Also went out about 4:00 today--James Wilson 13:39, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Also, the speedy delete category needs cleaning up, including a few possibly libelous entries.--James Wilson 15:04, 12 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks for cleaning those up!--James Wilson 16:11, 12 November 2011 (EST)

I have a similar problem to that of James, sometimes after making a couple of edits in a row I can't view this website at all for a couple of hours and when I try to access it all I see is a white screen. Is there something you can do to fix this problem? - Markman 21:06, 14 November 2011 (EST)

I had a problem this morning when I went to edit someone of vandalism on this talk page. I wasn't able to edit. Gave up and left. Ayzmo :) 16:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Email

Hi Mr. Schlafly. Could you please send me an email if you feel I should continue adding articles? I sent you several emails to conservapedia@zoho.com, but since none of them have ever been answered, I assume that my contributions were not appropriate in some way, or that I did something else to warrant exclusion from conversation. Please let me know. After over 700 edits, I assume I would have been notified had I strayed from policy in any way, but I could be mistaken. Thank you. Kevin Davis ^Talk 11:47, 12 November 2011 (EST)

Kevin, I'm not aware of any problems with your edits. Please contribute substance however makes sense.--Andy Schlafly 13:07, 12 November 2011 (EST)

Conservapedia Pro-Life Project

I think it is an excellent endeavor. Might I ask your opinion of this article I hope to add to the project?--James Wilson 19:14, 13 November 2011 (EST)

James, your many additions are fascinating to read and edit. Please feel free to add more entries on this important project.--Andy Schlafly 20:50, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Of course. Thanks, Mr. Schlafly!--James Wilson 20:54, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I added one on Japan and abortion. Also, could you protect Template:Evolution (the redirect)? Thanks!--James Wilson 22:10, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Protected it. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 22:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Thank you

Thank you for the unblock :) Ayzmo :) 22:04, 13 November 2011 (EST)

A suggestion for the block reasons

Maybe put a reason there that would instruct users to recreate their account if they have a frivolous username. There's the inappropriate username reason, but I would assume its purpose to be for a user who has an obviously vulgar username and has no interest in contributing constructively to the project. Thanks!--James Wilson 13:34, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Good suggestion. I added a new reason, and will improve it further now.--Andy Schlafly 14:45, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks!--James Wilson 15:00, 15 November 2011 (EST)

SkipCaptcha

Could you please add me to the SkipCaptcha group? AugustO 08:40, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Done - as requested and deserved.--Andy Schlafly 09:09, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks AugustO 02:33, 17 November 2011 (EST)

Panel on improving blocking policy - results of proceedings

Andy,

Here are the results of the Blocking Policy Improvement Panel:

"Username Policy-The site would accept inoffensive pseudonyms as usernames, since some may not want to give out their real names and some users still may be in secondary school, and would not be allowed to share their name on the Web. Names like "Farmer" or that kind of username would be acceptable. An obviously vulgar name (expletives, mocking another editor, insulting Conservapedia or anyone or anything else for that matter) would still result in a block."[2]

The new editor User:Libertyfree2000 was just blocked due to their username. I unblocked this person.

The current blocking policy is that first name and last initial is optional as a choice for a username.

I understand that blocking a bunch of new users who register back to back to vandalize makes sense. But that has nothing to do with their username.

I also understand that silly or foul names should be blocked.

Right now, Conservapedia does not have a coherent blocking policy. As a conservative website, Conservapedia should have a coherent blocking policy in terms of user names. It currently doesn't. Conservatives believe in law and order. Law and order is based on sound rules being applied consistently/fairly. This should be easy to fix - especially since Conservapedia does not have a super abundance of editors. Can Conservapedia make it a policy to tell new blockers to only block in the case of silly or foul usernames instead of being capricious?

Your feedback would be appreciated. Conservative 14:31, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Andy, do you approve of my revision to the drop down blocking reason menu ?

Adddendum: I just streamlined and made the username blocking drop down menu clearer and it is coherent. I removed redundant username blocking options and instead provided one clear and coherent option which reads "Silly and/or foul username. Account may be recreated as a first name and last initial"

Frankly, having a large list of options which contain duplicate/unclear/conflicting options makes it harder to choose a blocking option plus makes the implementation of blocking less consistent.

Can we keep this revision to the blocking drop down menu?

Panel members, please give your feedback below

I personally support User:Conservative's position on this; although it's nice to have usernames that are real names, some people may be reluctant to reveal their true identity publicly on Conservapedia due to possible complications in real life (for example, someone living under a dictator, someone whose boss or teachers are liberal, someone whose parents are liberal, someone whose ISP is liberal, etc) or because they don't want to be stalked by cyber-criminals whom commonly target our wiki. Furthermore, someone new to Conservapedia registering an account in good faith may not be aware that we prefer real names and may not come back after being blocked for their user-name. When I joined Conservapedia, for example, I initially registered as User:PCHSNJROTC because I had been known on every other wiki I am a part of as User:PCHS-NJROTC. I was blocked for a username violation, but later invited back when User:Geo.plrd recognized me from Wikipedia and told to recreate my account with my first name and last initial, which would be DavidM, but when I found that DavidM had already been registered, I reluctantly registered as DMorris, unsure if that was acceptable or not.

Additionally, I believe that we should adopt a policy of indefinitely hard blocking anonymous proxies and blocking any accounts that use anonymous proxies. If people want to contribute here, then they need to reveal their true IP like on every other wiki that isn't extremely far left liberal. Also, when blocking accounts solely based on CheckUser results, we should take into consideration the possibility that an IP may be shared by multiple users (a good way to check for that is to see if there's a bunch of edits from it on Wikipedia) or may be a dynamic IP that once belonged to a different person than the current user (most residential dial-up and broadband IPs are dynamic). For example, I've contributed to both Conservapedia and Wikipedia from shared IPs at school, work, my BlackBerry, and wi-fi hotspots, and I also once had a home IP that had previously been used by a vandal to deface Wikipedia articles. I believe we should have a noted policy of reporting vandalism to the vandals' ISPs, schools, employers, etc., and we should not be like Wikipedia and wait until they've been blocked several times. We should file abuse reports on vandals on first sight. DMorris 15:38, 16 November 2011 (EST)

I think that DMorris is right, and it is nice to have real names. And I'm sure DMorris would be very helpful in reporting vandals, and would be able to save some of the hassle of liberals spamming their petty nonsense and vulgarity on the pages. We should have constant blocking policy and should draft something.--James Wilson 19:02, 16 November 2011 (EST)

I think both user-name styles should be the norm. There's nothing wrong with an innocuous user name, so if John Smith wants to come in and call himself "Red Squid" that's ok with me. Karajou 00:44, 17 November 2011 (EST)

As a matter of fact, I'd personally rather someone call himself "Red Squid" than John McFakename if his real name is Mike McRealname because John McFakename would be a lie whereas Red Squid is just a username. DMorris 12:54, 17 November 2011 (EST)

Appeal of a block

Frankly, I hoped that the Blocking Policy Improvement Panel would have developed a workable way to appeal a block! According to the current policy, if you want to discuss your block, you have to contact the sysop who had blocked you. At the moment this seems to be possible only by mailing to conservapedia@zoho.com . But what can you do when no one reacts to your plea? Well, you can use the same address again, to contact all of the administrators. I tried this venue, but again got no answer.

So I broke a taboo and created a sock-puppet, identifying myself as User:AugustO and appealing my block. Obviously, this has worked.

AugustO 11:08, 17 November 2011 (EST)

Wikipedia has a neat little process where one posts an {{unblock}} template on their user talk page to appeal a block. In order for that to work here, we would have to make it so that blocked users can edit their own talk page (a privilege that could be revoked if it is abused). DMorris 12:57, 17 November 2011 (EST)

AugustO, work your way up to a blocker and convene your own panel. My panel was a resounding success as it achieved an unreverted change to the drop down menu for block reasons. :) I will savor this great accomplishment for the rest of 2011. :) Conservative 02:17, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Your humorous comment actually highlights the sad record of the Blocking Policy Improvement Panel: after three month, only a a minor change change is achieved which applies only to very few (new) editors. How long will it take to come up with a sensible and workable policy for blocks and their appeals? Wasn't the panel intended to tackle these issues? --AugustO 09:03, 18 November 2011 (EST)

AugustO, if you want to resurrect the Blocking Policy Improvement Panel and see what level of interest there is, I would not be against this. I would also find out what level of interest Aschlafly has in endorsing the findings of the panel since he is the owner of the wiki. If the blockers and Aschlafly are content with the status quo, then you will have to sell them on the potential benefits of such a panel. I would create a list of the potential benefits and potential costs of such a panel along with some commentary/analysis (some benefits/costs are going to be greater) before approaching the current blockers and Aschlafly about resurrecting the panel. In addition, there is the question of who is going to do the bulk of work involved in such a panel. Deciding who is going to do the work will allow help you to offer some kind of cost/benefit analysis. Obviously, if you were going to be doing a lot of the work involved in such a panel that makes your job of selling the resurrection of the panel much easier. The higher the potential benefits and the lower the potential costs of such a panel, the easier your advocacy will be. Conservative 12:51, 18 November 2011 (EST)

As a blocker, I would be interested in resurrecting the panel, if there is enough momentum to get it going.--James Wilson 13:19, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Comment: Conservapedia's blocking policy is in dire need of repair; unfortunately, the precedent lingers of participating in this discussion or suggesting reform, leads to hostility, vindictiveness, and blocking. Rob Smith 13:36, 9 December 2011 (EST)

Thank you

Thank you for deleting Category:French politicians. I appreciate the help! Kevin Davis ^Talk 17:35, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Cannot revert "Kent Hovind" vandalism

The article on Kent Hovind was vandalized three times in a row by a banned user "FergusM1970", and I could only undo the last edit. Please take a look as the vandalism and undo all three of them. Thank you, -danq 22:34, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Done as requested, by clicking on the earlier version (see page history for the entry) and then resaving the earlier version.--Andy Schlafly 22:49, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Six Nations all met in Vienna

When you marked this description of the Congress of Vienna as correct, which six nations did you have in mind? --AugustO 02:42, 17 November 2011 (EST)

It seems that I have to elaborate: Generally, I'm don't think that good to let a false statement in a homework stand uncorrected: Even when you think that it isn't worth to take a point off, you should comment on it to prevent the perpetuation of such an error.

Specifically there were four great powers Austria, Prussia, Russia and the United Kingdom, as well as the fifth power France. Beside them there were more than 200 delegacies, but it is hard to single out one for a sixth nation: Portugal and Sweden singed the Acte principal du congrès de Vienne on 15 July 1815, too, some other nations ratified it later.

AugustO 02:33, 18 November 2011 (EST)

You may well be right, but that delves into a level of trivia that can become a distraction at some point. When answers are substantively correct, points are not deducted based on such debatable minutia. But thanks for your insights about this.--Andy Schlafly 11:41, 20 November 2011 (EST)

As a teacher of a class on World history you know that I am right. But that's not the point: whether a point is deducted or not, a pupil should know when he has written something obviously wrong. Or would you leave a sentence about the fourteen American colonies or the four leaders in Yalta uncommented? AugustO 12:03, 20 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks

Many thanks for the new privileges!--James Wilson 06:02, 17 November 2011 (EST)

Thank you once again!

Thank you for adding it me to the edit group! (didn't notice it until a couple of minutes ago) - Markman 05:35, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Re: Congratulations

Thank you for the new privileges! --AaronT 19:45, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Conservative Christian Credo

I brought up the idea of writing a Conservative Christian Credo on the main talk page and didn't get much of a response. I still think it is a good idea though. I thought about trying to write it out myself; but than I revisited the early history of the Christian Church and it occurred to me that they always tried to come to a consensus and find Gods truth in these matters through a leaned group of devoted Christians. I believe Conservapedias track record and experience with the Conservative Bible Project makes it the best community to pursue this vital undertaking. I know you are aware of how some Christians are twisting the faith, I believe that's why you started the Conservative Bible Project. Please consider this important extension of your earlier work. JimmyRa 10:50, 22 November 2011 (EST)

I understand that you received a lot of criticism concerning the Conservative Bible Project and that may make you reluctant to undertake a similar project. I think you accomplished good things with your translation efforts and even if you don't feel like Conservapedia is up to undertaking this project I would still love to hear your advice on it. Conservapedia is my first choice as a community to work on this project, as I can't think of any community that could do it better. I hope liberal criticism doesn't end up stifling your project, you can't take it to heart as they don't have any. JimmyRa 17:28, 22 November 2011 (EST)

To be truthful, consider changing your name to Moderatopedia. Atheist political correctness here has run amuck.

I never thought of all places here at "Conserva"pedia I would be banned for confronting a whiney atheist. Guess I was wrong. Well, with all due Christian love, I am willing to be persecuted for defending God and Jesus, be it against liberals or self-described conservatives. HP 22:20, 23 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks!

Dear User:Aschlafly, thank you for the additional editing privileges. I feel gracious for receiving this honor! I hope you and your family enjoyed your Thanksgiving! With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:36, 25 November 2011 (EST)

User:AK

Hello User:Aschlafly, one user, User:AK, contacted me and stated that he would like to transfer some of his contributions from Wikipedia, where his username is User:Stephfo. He is a Christian Czechoslovakian and therefore, will need night editing privileges. I have seen his edits at Wikipedia and feel he will be an asset to Conservapedia. Could you please enable them on his account as he has informed me that he is unable to edit right now? I would really appreciate it. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:35, 28 November 2011 (EST)

Additional privileges have been given to his account as requested!--Andy Schlafly 01:00, 28 November 2011 (EST)

Dear User:Aschlafly, thanks! I'll let him know! With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:32, 28 November 2011 (EST)

Aschlafly, is your wife conservative?

Such a question is as intrusive and shows as much bad taste as the essay PZ Myers, is your wife an atheist? When I ask you to delete this essay, I'm asking for keeping up standards, not for censorship!

As User:Conservative's talk page is blocked, I couldn't bring up this matter there.

AugustO 16:13, 28 November 2011 (EST)

Aschlafly, could you PLEASE DELETE THE ESSAY?

• Mrs. Myers is no person of public interest
• The question's only motivation is the existence of another atheist having a Christian wife!
• And it's all gossip - which should be anathema here: We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.

AugustO 15:45, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Aschlafly, do you approve of this kind of gossipy attack-pieces? AugustO 08:57, 30 November 2011 (EST)

Best conservative languages?

Hi Mr. Schlafly,

I'm currently a college freshman majoring in linguistics, and I recall you talking at some point about how some languages are better than others. Perhaps it would be an idea to "rank" languages by how conservative or otherwise superior they might be?

Thanks,

-Tim Bowen

Ranking languages by conservatism: that's an intriguing idea. Would you like to start a new entry about this? I suppose it should include some analysis of the features of a language.--Andy Schlafly 18:51, 28 November 2011 (EST)

Certainly, I'll start one tomorrow morning. -Tim Bowen

Hi Tim, I started one here after seeing your comment but I'm not sure how to proceed. I think the two I have there are good entries, but I'm struggling to think of more. For instance, I considered Italian as ranking the same as (or higher than) Tolkien's, but it might not reflect their history. LindaP 21:55, 28 November 2011 (EST)

Ah, thanks. I'd forgotten I had an early chemistry class today, and would have done this but for that... I added Ancient Greek, Biblical Hebrew and Icelandic. -Tim Bowen

Hey Tim, I got two questions for you...

1) Do you think that Yiddish ranks somewhere amongst the Conservaitve languages? Afterall the Soviet government tried to surpress it and as a Jew I think more of my people were Conservative during the times it was widely spoken.

2) Do you think that there are any languages that can be calssified as having a liberal character? Esperanto seems to me like someothing a person who believes in breaking down borders between nations would like, but other than that I can't think of any other languages which could be described as liberal. - Markman 14:54, 29 November 2011 (EST)

I think French, English English, and Arabic could be considered liberal languages because they are the languages that many liberals around the world speak. Alcool 15:27, 29 November 2011 (EST)

User Rights request

I would suggest a review on the User Rights for SeanS:

1. He claims to be retired on his talk page
2. His recent block activity is very questionable.
3. He previously requested that you revoke his rights

~ JonG ~ 20:01, 28 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks for the alert. I did revoke his blocking privileges after reviewing his recent blocks.--Andy Schlafly 23:02, 28 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks for making this site :)

Hi, i just wanted to say thanks for making this site, it really helped me better shape my political views!

many thanks, Uraptor

SeanS

SeanS has given unwarranted blcoks to both me and to User:Conservative, and he also reverted several of my blocks given to vandals and problematic users. He appears to be a troll, can you please revoke his blocking privileges so he won't cause anymore problems on this website? - Markman 03:58, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Good suggestion, and I've already removed the blocking privileges from his account as you request.--Andy Schlafly 09:25, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks for the response, hopefully we won't be hearing from him anymore since he blocked himself when he still had blocking privileges. - Markman 10:10, 29 November 2011 (EST)

State Representative Template

I have no knowledge of making templates and was hoping you, or someone watching your page, could help. I was wondering if it would be possible to get one created for State Representatives. We have a lot of people who held position in state legislatures before holding federal positions and that is currently unrepresented. Ayzmo :) 10:47, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Good suggestion, and you might consider copying the format of the many existing templates that do exist, such as for entries on colleges or on Bible-related entries such as the Conservative Bible Project.--Andy Schlafly 11:53, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Image upload

Andy, I'd like to upload a picture to illustrate an article I've started. It's about an excellent conservative computer game: Plants vs Zombies, which has a lot to teach kids about conservative values of property, home-ownership and self-defence. I can't work out how to upload images on CP so please could you explain to me how to do it. Thanks. HollyS 18:47, 2 December 2011 (EST)

News story: "'Spending Per Pupil in Public Schools Climbed"

I noticed you just added a news item: "Spending Per Pupil in Public Schools Climbed as Economy Crashed, Says Dept. of Ed Study." I wonder if this might be contributing to it: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/08/us-immigration-california-idUSTRE7971SK20111008 (Reuters) Sat Oct 8, 2011 - "California Governor Jerry Brown on Saturday signed a bill giving illegal immigrant college students access to state-funded financial aid." - Taj 01:16, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Great point, Taj. That would contribute to the inflated costs.--Andy Schlafly 01:28, 3 December 2011 (EST)

tactic to try to unnecessarily throw a spanner in Conservapedia's web traffic was quelled "schnell!!!"

When Conservapedia's Canada article unnecessarily insulted the Canadian flag, I deleted and you thought it was a good thing. As a result, Conservapedia's Canadian traffic bounced back.

Now the same tactic was being used to make exaggerated claims about the German, French, Italian, British English, Japanese etc, languages in order to unnecessary offend whole countries by denigrating their languages/culture. There are a lot of Italian Americans, German Americans, etc. plus Conservapedia gets a lot of traffic outside the United States.

It was also designed to make Conservapedia look ridiculous.

Well, to use a little German I threw a "spanner" in the attempt to diminish Conservapedia's traffic and I quelled it "SCHNELL!" and I am sure German Americans and the hard working Germans agree with me on this.

It was done by the parodist LindaP who followed the latest classic liberal parodist progression and I just got an email from a Conservapedia sysop agreeing with on this.

Here is the progression:

1. Pick a female username so male Sysops are less likely to block

2. Quickly make effusive praise of you and Conservapedia on your userpage. Often tie this to faith in some way.

3. Start making highly exaggerated claims and/or weird edits.

4. Sometimes take a poke at me or ask me some weird question in order to try to get me to make some weird response to it (LindaP did not do this, but the liberal parodist HollyS did who I also banned). Often these liberal parodist are atheists who harbor some animosity toward me.

5. Create weird articles in order to make Conservapedia look bad and/or cut our web traffic.

I know that Karajou and Ed agree with me on this and if memory serves they also expressed their opposition to LindaP's essay designed to make Conservapedia look weird and unnecessarily offend whole nations or large segments of the US population.

By the way, later today I am going to have some penne and some olive oil and I am guessing that Karajou and Ed agree with me that these are not "liberal foods" created by those Italians who speak the liberal language of Italian. Now that's Italian! Viva Italia! Conservative 14:00, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Snell? Do you mean schnell? --FrederickT3 14:10, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Yes, Frederick the Great. My German sometimes comes from Hogan's Heroes. :) Hande hoch! Schnell!  :) Conservative 14:15, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Some concerns

I am aware there are several atheistic vandal sites that post critiques of Conservapedia. These websites are filtered by this site's spam filter, as to prevent children on this site from seeing possibly inappropriate material there. However, I wish to refute some claims on that site. Is there any way I can cite passages of the atheist site when I quote pages from them, as I am aware that one of Conservapedia's commandments is citation for all info? NickP 16:22, 4 December 2011 (EST)

Global atheism is on the decline and the Question evolution! campaign will grind away at atheism in the Western World with increasing speed (See: Atheism and evolution essays). There is no real urgency to fire cannons at internet ships which are taking in a lot of water. Conservative 18:49, 4 December 2011 (EST)

Logically, atheist eventually grind away as a result of Question evolution. Unfortunately, atheists tend not to be susceptible to logic, so sometimes it is necessary to focus on specific groups at a time. If they see their arguments thoroughly refuted, they will be more likely to abandon their illogical state of mind. NickP 19:32, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Behavior of User:Conservative

Mr Schlafly, I tried to point something out to User:Conservative on the talk page for one of his essays and he immediately accused me of being an atheist. I'm not going to stay around here if sysops are allowed to insult people without provocation. --ClearView2011 19:22, 5 December 2011 (EST)

If you are not an atheist, it is likely that you were exhibiting atheistic traits that Conservative was pointing out. NickP 19:33, 5 December 2011 (EST)

There's only one atheistic trait I'm aware of, and that's rejecting the existence of God. Anyway I'm talking to Mr Schlafly, not you. --ClearView2011 19:36, 5 December 2011 (EST)

ClearView, it is probably best if you do not attempt to poke Conservative whilst you are new to the site. Don't imagine that his essays speak for the site, or that we all approve of him, rather he is allowed to function in his own way because he doesn't do any real harm. Just ignore him and everyone will get on better. --DamianJohn 19:37, 5 December 2011 (EST)

(Edit Conflict)This is a public wiki, and I will respond if there is something objectionable about your statement. Yes, atheism by its definition only refers to rejection of God, but atheists in general share some collective traits. Even speaking on simple, liberal terms, the vast majority of atheists in America are political liberals. Thus, liberalism is an atheistic trait, for example. NickP 19:41, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Nick, respond if you like, but if you're going to defend such unChristian behaviour I'm not interested in talking to you. Damian, if he insists on writing essays that leave him open to attack that's up to him. My issue is that he called me an atheist for no reason, and having done a bit of reading it isn't the first time he's done this, is it? Why should I contribute to a project whose senior members are free to insult people for no reason? Does Mr Schlafly know he's doing this? --ClearView2011 19:42, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Take a look at this graph as far as the web traffic at Weareatheism.com :) It is not exactly doing as well as Tim Tebow. :) Please see: Essay: Atheism vs. Tim Tebow - Tebow wins. The website certainly could use some MACHISMO! :) Conservative 19:57, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Are you going to apologise for insulting me or not? --ClearView2011 19:59, 5 December 2011 (EST)

It looks to me as if you are just goading Conservative. Like I say, just leave him alone. He is a "senior member" in name only, although he does have the power to block you, just as you appear to want. --DamianJohn 20:42, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Atlas Shrugged part 1

Dear mr schlafly. I am new to editing the site but have been a reader for a long time. I try to edit things within my specialty in life (film and media) so I generally do not make tons of edits (as it is not the focus of the site). However, I was recently browsing and saw that the article for Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is ver incomplete. It makes no mention of the critical response it received from the mainstream media. I would like to add in a section on the response, especially the difference between the response from liberals and the response from conservatives. However, the Page is locked. Is there any chance It can be unlocked for a few days so I can add it in? thanks! --AlexanderSz 11:47, 7 December 2011 (EST)

The entry has been unlocked per your request!--Andy Schlafly 11:52, 7 December 2011 (EST)

Thanks

Thanks Andy, for kindly devandalizing my talk page. Gregkochuconn 21:16, 8 December 2011 (EST)

Gingrich Administration

Dear Mr Schlafly, I suspect that your account has been compromised by some vandalist. I can't imagine that you created the article Gingrich Administration. That must have been a parodist with the intention of making Conservapedia look bad. --FrederickT3 13:45, 11 December 2011 (EST)

People were probably in disbelief when we predicted many months ago that Newt Gingrich would be the Republican nominee. See Conservapedia proven right.--Andy Schlafly 14:42, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Update: we made that prediction about Newt Gingrich winning the Republican nomination more than a year ago.--Andy Schlafly 14:44, 11 December 2011 (EST)

This would probably mean more if Mitt Romney hadn't been the predicted winner before and after said prediction, Andy. At times, Conservapedia predicted that even Donald Trump is more likely to win the nomination than Newt Gingrich. --Sid 3050 15:07, 11 December 2011 (EST)

The entry you cite changes often to reflect developments in the campaigns and polling. I didn't say that Newt Gingrich has always ranked #1 in it, but we have consistently ranked Newt higher in likelihood than virtually all other political observers have ... including #1 for some time now and as early as even last year.--Andy Schlafly 15:14, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Yes, but the "Proven Right" prediction says "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President", which strikes me as somewhat dishonest or at the very least inaccurate, considering that Conservapedia also predicted "Mitt Romney is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President". In fact, my cursory inspection of the history tells me that Romney has occupied the #1 spot far longer than Gingrich has, to the point that, by the time you added the "Proven right" entry, Romney had still been in the #1 spot! Also, at one point quite recently, Gingrich was suddenly less likely to win the nomination than Romney, Bachmann, J. Bush, Ron Paul, or Perry! Really, this is classic cherry picking - you are finally confident enough to throw your full weight behind Gingrich, so you look at the time line of who you predicted to win: "Romney, Romney, Romney, Gingrich, Romney, Romney, Romney". And then you pick the Gingrich phase (August 26 - November 21, 2010) and claim that Conservapedia predicted that Gingrich will win. ...and you somehow don't see the problem with all of that? --Sid 3050 19:46, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Is Gingrich really the best choice for America ?

Dear Mr Schlafly, apparently Conservapedians (and especially you) are good followers of N. Gingrich. Am I the only one who is wondering if M Gingrich is really a good Christian ? What about his 3 wives ? What about his extra-marital affair ? What about the fact that he is clearly overweight ? I am a bit confused here: would you really accept such a man as President ? --PhilipN 19:13, 11 December 2011 (EST)

That stuff has nothing to do with how he might handle himself as president. NickP 19:25, 11 December 2011 (EST)

But it tells a lot about a person: he seems to be a cheater, a liar and not a good christian. And that tells a lot about how he would handle himself as president. Furthermore, conservapedia is largely involve in moral values and I believe it should not endorse a man without any good values --PhilipN 19:31, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Consevapedia is concerned with the objective truth, not the subjective truth. We would support an atheist candidate if he made it clear that he would not try to damage the core family values of America. Unfortunately, there are not very many atheist conservatives in America, so naturally most of the candidates we support are Christians. NickP 19:49, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Thanks for your feedback NickP but I do not believe that Mr Schlafly is blind to moral values of our candidates. And frankly, my question was for Mr Schlafly, I do not care that much about what other people believe Mr Schlafly may think. --PhilipN 15:31, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Rollback

Mr. Schlafly, I am requesting Rollback powers as a means to fight vandalism. As you can see, this would have been easier to handle if I had rollback. NickP 20:29, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Although it would be helpful to both of us, I do not believe Conservapedia awards rollback privileges except to Administrators. It would make reversion of vandalism much easier if block users had this, but unlike Wikipedia and other sites, this is not a standalone privilege here.--James Wilson 21:06, 11 December 2011 (EST)

In that case, I request editing rights as a first step promotion. I live in the West Coast, and as a result there are some hours where I may wish to contribute but I am unable to due to the night lock. NickP 23:15, 11 December 2011 (EST)

NickP, thanks for your request and it will be considered. Additional account privileges are based on the quality and quantity of edits. You've had a good start! I look forward to reviewing your future edits.--Andy Schlafly 23:31, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Debate:Should Conservapedia develop a clear policy on standards for encyclopaedic and family-friendly content?

Why was this debate singled out for deletion? The reason stated is: ‎ (lack of recent activity, clearing out clutter) But there has been action on this page as late as 14 October 2011 (see the logs), while there are other debates which are dormant for years like Debate:Is Obama an Atheist? or Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist? - and these are as much clutter as the debate deleted...

So, while the lack of recent activity, clearing out clutter sounds reasonably enough to delete an obsolete debate, singling out this specific debate gives a mixed message!

AugustO 02:41, 12 December 2011 (EST)

August, there is a significant difference between the examples you mention and the debate that was deleted: the deleted debate is (was) about Conservapedia itself, whereas the others are about issues beyond this encyclopedia.

I would tend to agree that a debate about Conservapedia itself is "clutter", particularly if it has produced no clear decision in three months or more. Time spent narcisistically contemplating oneself is generally time wasted, whereas Obama, Franklin, atheism and deism are all worthy of discussion. In fact, I am going to look at both debates now and see if I have something fruitful to add.--CPalmer 09:51, 12 December 2011 (EST)

You are making valid points - at least for the debates I cited above. OTOH, there are quite a few narcissistic debates (not only Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad, but a whole list) most of which haven't been contributed to for a long time... AugustO 10:03, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Well, I would say that the majority of debates in that list are clearly clutter, and could well stand to be deleted. Perhaps after a check from an admin whether they contain any agreements that might need to be added to the site guidelines.--CPalmer 10:17, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Article Mr. Schlafly might be interested in

Hi, I am a new editor, and wanted to share this article with Mr. Schlafly: http://myona.com/2011/12/12/virginia-tech-shooter-influenced-gta-5-battlefield-3-mw3/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CarlTM (talk)

Swing States 2012

Hi! I just did some work on your Swing States 2012 article and am planning on adding more, but I was just curious if my edits were of the type you were looking for there. Thanks!--MorrisF 18:58, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Your edits to that entry look great! It will be a very informative topic over the next 11 months.--Andy Schlafly 22:55, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Is there to be a spring history course on here?

So i missed out on the fall one, but i would really like to take the course, is there going to be a spring course?

A small request

Hi Mr Schlafly, I made a small request on this page concerning the Template:Country. Also, I wanted to add some images for the new article Sao Tome and Principe but I do not have the rights for that. Is this possible to do something about it ? Thanks, --PhilipN 21:13, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Unprotected the template per your request. As to image uploads, they can be requested at Conservapedia:Image upload requests. Eventually the privilege to directly upload images can be earned based on quality and quantity of edits.--Andy Schlafly 21:17, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Thanks for this but I am facing a small issue as explained here : [3]--PhilipN 22:59, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Pronunciation of Pakistan

I edited the Shibboleth article to remove the claim that Obama pronounces "Pakistan" the way he does because he's a muslim. He doesn't; he pronounces it that way because he learned English from someone who learned Standard English instead of American English. Everyone in Britain pronounces it that way and 97% of them aren't muslims. However ScottDG is repeatedly reverting my edit without giving any argument against the facts. --HarryPagett 21:20, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Conservapedia Google Ratings

Mr. Schlafly, my article on the Elvis Presley phenomenon is the sixth-highest ranked article on Google! search I also believe other articles hold similar rank!--James Wilson 21:27, 15 December 2011 (EST)

What's the search string you used? I Googled "Elvis Presley phenomenon" and the 6th highest was this: [4]. --HarryPagett 21:32, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Bizarre. I just Googled it and our article showed up at #6.--James Wilson 21:33, 15 December 2011 (EST)

That is kind of odd. I have it at #11, which unfortunately is just over on the second page. --HarryPagett 21:36, 15 December 2011 (EST)

It is probably due to Google personalized search or you being in different countries (Google USA, Google UK, etc.). See: Turning off your Google personalizations Clearing your cookies will do the same thing and this a good program for clearing out your cookies: CCleaner This will work too: Disabling Google personalized search Conservative 22:36, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Archive

Would you like me to archive your page again?--James Wilson 22:35, 15 December 2011 (EST)