User talk:Aschlafly/Archive6

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I sent the homework as soon as I got home. Sorry for the delay. Billy M 18:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I've given BillOReillyFan a chance to explain himself. As noted, our webmaster did catch and clean it, and we gave BillOReillyFan the benefit of the doubt. Note that I did ask him yesterday on this page whether it was hacked

into to.

In the absence of an explanation, then I'd suggest abandoning it. I'd like have something American in it anyway. Many of us across the political spectrum like this:


--Aschlafly 17:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I like it. Contemporary, ID's the US as its home, and I am a big fan of fireworks, wish they were animated! --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 17:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism of the Conservative article

Could one of the sysops or administrators please take a look at the Conservative article. I've just reverted two seperate vandalism attempts by user Facio.

  • Here is another recent entry:

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party is called the Conservative partyand as it's name suggests hold traditional conservative views. Its current leader is David Cameron. In politcal policy the UK Conservatives are more closely aligned to the US Democrats, despite them being the most right of the main 3 parties.

Many issues that are commonly used to define Conservatives in the US have little or no relevance in other countries - for example, UK Conservatives do not campaign on issues of gun control or abortion rights, and only a minority are overtly hostile to homosexuality (although they may oppose legislation designed to enforce equality). Fewer still express racist views, and are generally disciplined by their party when they do. Nevertheless, there is generally a strong bias towards the nuclear family over other forms of cohabitation. Since the late 1970s, UK conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of Laissez-faire economics, privatization and lower taxation. Religion as a whole and biblical literalism in particular play only a very minor role in UK politics (arguably with the exception of Northern Island), and the lack of a religious belief is not considered incompatible with British conservatism.

So in the United States, the majority of Conservatives campaign on platforms of overt hostility to homosexuality and hold racist views, as opposed to the United Kingdom Conservatives, which hold those views far less? And lack of relgious belief is considered incompatible with being a Conservative in the US, as opposed to the UK?

BTW, the italics above was written by a Sysop, Andrew.--~ TerryK Talk2Me! 17:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)


I would like to propose a new namespace, the "Essay:" namespace. This is in light of Conservapedia recieving it's first essay, here. I would propose the ground rules that all opinions are welcomed, and will be classified as conservative, liberal, creationist, evolutionist, etc. And that essays will not influence the writing of an essay (they cannot be cited, can't be openly advertised on talk pages, etc.). What do you think? --Hojimachongtalk 14:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I think you meant the essays will not influence the writing of the "Page" or Article? And just how many of these essays are you proposing to be attached to whatever page? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 17:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Meaning the Essays would not influence the writing of any article in the mainspace. Dunno, probably not the best of ideas, but worth a thought.
  • Well, I am all for scholarly essays, by raising questions, or advancing theories, they help us think! It is indeed worthy of more thought. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 17:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I support the idea of an Essay namespace. It would be a great forum for discussion and could even help with the debate section. It gets an aye vote by me. ColinRtalk 17:55, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Request for you to make a posting at these two places

Please give your view here along with a statement that Sysops should keep the REDIRECT UP:

Please give your view here as well:

Conservative 18:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

About 15-20% of our Alexa traffic is Brit. Not to mention the other countries. I think we could double it if we got rid of our Queen's English vs American English rule. Let's not stress our pride in our country though logos but by the excellence of the articles written about US places and US people. Conservative 18:14, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

  • I would have to say, Conservative, I find that an odd position for you to take, given your writings. If the articles are excellent, the readers will come, regardless of our logo. Our sworn enemies beat a path to our hospitals when they are sick, and the U.S. flag is flying in front of them.  ;-) --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 18:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I am not a flag burner by any means. At the same time, lets not be overly nationalistic. The apostle Paul said that he became all things to all men. He changed his name from Saul to Paul for example. I am not saying we should change the substance of our material but merely that the outward dressing be something universal for the logo. How about the first picture seen here: [1] Conservative 19:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
  • I like that one as well, however, I still like the one above too. Perhaps the second one, everybody being so concerned that all countries be represented equally, lol. FYI, my credentials as both a Christian and Conservative are absolutely as unimpeachable as Andrew's, however this is the Conservapedia, not the Biblepedia or Fundementalistpedia. The reason I agreed with Schlafly on the logo is, quite simply his stated reason for this even being, that it was to be balanced, a U.S. site, not denigrating Christian thought or American values. However, I do see your point, Conservative, and it is not without merit. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 19:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
As a true-blue fair-dinkum Aussie, count me as also being against a logo with the American flag. Philip J. Rayment 05:35, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

This only goes to confirm my views

The utterly disgraceful behaviour of "Conservative" in relation to the Scientific Theory of Evolution page only goes to confirm my views about the dogmatic stance of some creationists. He is doing his own cause harm and he is certainly harming this site.

When are his sysop privileges going to be removed?

I am fast gaining the impression that you are content to let him ride roughshod other all other editors because his views correspond with your own. If that is true then you should take a hard look at your own priorities. --Horace 18:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe in being civil. At the same time, I agree with Aschlafly that having two articles on the same subject is bad precedent. Are we going to have two United States articles and two George Bush articles? Of course not. I am merely preventing an attempt to have two articles which I think a Sysop should do. Conservative 19:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I am fairly sure you will want separate articles for the 41st and the 43rd presidents. The issue with the evolution pages is that there are a large number of facts that have not been incorporated into the version that is currently approved and locked while a large number of misunderstandings and out of context quotes are. --Mtur 19:23, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservative, you should have your sysop privileges removed. Your behaviour has been disgraceful.
You talk about "what a Sysop should do"! You lock pages if editors disagree with your views. You control the so-called Theory of Evolution page and use it to promote your own poorly thought out dogma.
You are a major problem for this site. Your behaviour is a discouragement to people who have something real and substantive to contribute.
I am aware that that is a harsh sentiment but I believe it to be accurate. --Horace 19:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree that the evolution page should be unlocked. Sulgran 19:31, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I think everyone knows where I stand. May I speak for PalMD001 too?-AmesG 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Serious work needed by experts. Either appoint a few experts to mediated contributions or open it upPalmd001 20:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, surely you're going to address these concerns.-AmesG 20:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Given that the stated objection was to the existence of multiple articles, I took the factual, well-referenced content of the deleted article and merged it into the existing one. I mention this here since, unless you happened to be viewing the article during the four minutes it was actually in that state, you probably missed it. Tsumetai 20:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Good man Tsumetai. You could always do it again. I doubt Conservative wants to fight a bunch of sysops too.-AmesG 20:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
It is a step in the right direction. Would you care to estimate about the percentage of the article that goes to supporting evolution to the amount that goes into attacking it? --Mtur 20:45, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Hrmm. Well, it's a tricky calculation, but if pushed I'd have to say that the percentage supporting evolution would be...umm...carry the three...ah! Zero. Tsumetai 20:55, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Four minutes? Wow, that's got to be a record of sorts, I bet. Still, I appreciate the effort very much :) --Sid 3050 20:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Do I read the info on my watchlist correctly? The page got vaped AGAIN and now is just a redirect to "What Conservative found on creationist sites about evolution"? Bah.
To answer the original question: "Do we want two articles about one topic?" The answer is "Yes, if the first article completely omits important aspects, lacks any sort of structure/direction, and turns the entire topic into something people with half a brain will only shake their head at."
The current Theory of Evolution article is like Jeopardy. The reader gets a bunch of answers by creationists and has to figure out what caused them.
I'm absolutely no expert in the field. That makes me a part of the target audience since actual experts wouldn't have to consult a non-specialized wiki for their own expert field. This wiki aims to educate people who may not know much beyond the very basics about stuff. As a non-expert, I can safely say that the current article is like watching a movie trailer. You get glimpses and teaser scenes, but the actual content will not be revealed to you. All you get are seemingly random snippets at a fast pace. If anything drives people back to Wikipedia, it will be this article. If only because they will need it to figure out what Conservative is babbling about here. --Sid 3050 20:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

There is no use arguing. Anything that needs to be said can be put in the Theory of evolution article under the appropriate sections. I'm sure there are enough legitimate sources and citations out there to effectively balance out the claims put forth by Conservative. --Hojimachongtalk 20:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Ahem. Tsumetai 20:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
If he won't just revert it, super idea. Good luck, Admins. I wish I could contribute, but since it's locked, no dice.-AmesG 21:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservative has enough stacked against him right now. It is worth noting that Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists are Christians too, though it is presenting an exclusively pro-YEC viewpoint. I mean, this is inappropriate by any stretch of the imagination. I will cobble up an alternative version of the article at User:Hojimachong/Evolution. --21:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I think Conservative can be certain he's doing a good job when every liberal critic of the site is complaining about him. For my money he's the best Admin on here. Please don't listen to these other people--the silent majority agrees on this issue--Conservative is right (no pun intended.)--CWilson 21:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
That's pretty ironic that you cite the majority, since only 45% of Christians are YEC's (see the first table under "everyone" here). --Hojimachongtalk 21:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, CWilson, your conclusion only follows logically if the goal of Conservapedia is to repress anything other than YEC ideas, which I didn't think it was.
'Conservapedia, not YoungEarthCreationistpedia. You can be conservative and not be a YEC. And regarding dinosaurs, I'm looking for a citation, but it's something like, 90% of the public accepts that dinosaurs existed in the times described by scientists. --Hojimachongtalk 21:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I would say, although I am no expert, that the large majority of CONSERVATIVE Christians are YECs. We aren't counting loosey goosey "Christians" such as Unitarians and the like. And this is a Conservative Christian site, so yes, I would say that YEC is the majority and goes along with what a lot of the people believe here. I don't see any surpression of views here, though, except attempted supression of unpopular religious ideas and biblical literalism by some of the more liberal on this site. Why can't you people just let us YECs have our beliefs?--CWilson 21:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

(unindent) Who are you to decide what branches of Christianity are the "correct" ones? This will be divisive to the project. And no this is not ConservaChristianpedia, merely Conservapedia. We do give full credit to Christianity, I guess, but this can be interpreted differently. And logical, factual, cited evidence shouldn't be kicked out of the article, as Conservative has repeatedly done. And we can let "you YECs" have your beliefs, but cited and sourced and properly worded stuff shouldn't be deleted. The issue isn't really the state of the article now (it can always be improbed), but Conservative's inappropriate ownership of the article. --Hojimachongtalk 21:40, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

(unindent)CWilson - go to public believes about evolution and creation and scroll down to the section titled "Beliefs among conservative Christians:" which was a 1999 Focus on the Family web poll that showed 43% said the universe was created within thousands of years, 46% said don't know when, 10% said billions of years. --Mtur 21:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Which means that, once again, only 43% are YEC's. --Hojimachongtalk 21:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
CWislon, you are not an expert and very few of the Christians and conservatives I know (and I come from the middle of the Bible Belt in TN) are not YECs. Furthermore, I find it offensive that you label any critic of your/Conservative's views as liberal. Sorry, but disagreeing with your ideology does not make me or anyone else a liberal. I for one am a Libertarian, which, given the definition of conservative in the dictionary, one could argue is even more conservative than you. Moreover, having such a large number of users (conservative, liberal, and libertarian) complaining is not a good sign of editing. ColinRtalk 21:45, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry for flying off the handle and being mean to you, user:CWilson :-(. Hope you'll accept my apologies.-AmesG 21:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The statistics you gave are very informative, Mtur. It shows that YE Creationism is the plurality point of view in all of America. Therefore, I think it deserves respect. Among conservative Christians who have a point of view, also, as you noted, 4 times more believe in YEC than evolutionism. So, you yourself have supported my case. AmesG--I respect what what you have to say, and I am not angry. I am interested in your POV, but I think what you keep failing to understand is that for that plurality of Americans that believes in YEC the Bible has the strength of greater than supposed scientific facts, which are often incorrect due to errors. The Bible is supported by enormous personal evidence and has strength of fact. I myself only ask we give the Bible the defference due to something as widely if not more widely believed by science. As for liberals I am only referring to self avowed liberals, the ones who admit to it on their talk pages. I know Conservatives who disagree with me. Politics or religion are not simple subjects, so I'm sorry if the libertarians thought I was criticizing them.--CWilson 22:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course the view of YEC's deserves respect, indeed, it is given quite a bit at Theory of Evolution. But it's only 43%, among Conservative Christians. It's not the content that bothers us (if I may speak for others who agree with me), but that User:Conservative deletes everything that's added if it doesn't agree verbatim with his own POV. --Hojimachongtalk 22:03, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Also, Wilson, the fact that science has been wrong before doesn't mean it is wrong now. Science evolves, just like our understanding of God evolved between the Old and New Testaments. Because God made a new compact with Man, overriding the old in part, does that mean the new one will just get overridden too?-AmesG 22:05, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

This issue is defiantly having an adverse effect on your editors. My interest in seriously contributing to this project plummeted to almost zilch over this. Tmtoulouse 22:23, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I know what you mean. It's incredibly frustrating when you realize that well-sourced and researched articles simply get reverted or mutilated because it broke these unwritten rules and assertions:
  • The Bible has to be taken literally. It is the word of God and thus the only reliable source when it comes to history and science.
  • Young Earth Creationism is correct. This is a fact.
  • It follows: Everything that goes against YEC is wrong, non-factual, and cannot be proven.
  • Especially non-YEC science.
  • Because all non-YEC scientists are atheists.
  • Except maybe for the Theistic Evolution guys, but they're wrong, too.
  • The majority of Americans does not support evolution. Because of this majority, YEC is right and should be supported by scientists.
  • Very few people outside the United States actually support YEC. But what does the majority know? Pfffft.
  • The last two points don't conflict at all.
Sometimes, I have the feeling that certain people don't even read articles (I know they don't read sources - or if they do, they are either being consciously dishonest or they simply fail at reading comprehension) and just revert when the first two lines suddenly don't bash science anymore. --Sid 3050 04:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Great Flood article

Having opened this article up with a single stub entry and a picture temporarily, I intended to fill it with as much info as needed; instead I saw 2 and-a-half short paragraphs of statements written by seven individuals in the "Dick and Jane"-style of writing who all thought they were contributing to a scholarly article, but instead subjected the article to pointless amatuerism. There was nothing professional in their attempts at all. I intend to keep it locked until I'm done with it, which would be by 2pm Eastern time tomorrow. The things I put up with ! Karajou 20:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

  • ROFL! Hang in there! I have people citing biblical passages in the article about Slavery, trying to make it appear the Bible and/or God endorses it....--~ TerryK Talk2Me! 20:31, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Karajou, you're exactly right to lock the page as you try to complete it. This is an example of what I mentioned earlier: others should give some professional courtesy to the person developing the entry.
By the way, I don't know if you're aware of this, but the Flood is even more contentious than evolution. Oh no!!! I suspect I will have comments along with a few hundred others.--Aschlafly 21:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll have the anti-flooding guys pulling their hair out over the thought of it...maybe expand the "effects of pattern baldness" article! Karajou 23:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

In the January 1993 National Geographic article on dinosaurs there's a photograph of a set of dinosaur tracks raised to the verticle; the tracks and ripple marks are clear. The caption states that it was a scene of daily life on a beach, but when looking at the tracks you can see evidence for a catastrophe by water; the first track laid down, then a wave of water washes over it, repeating for the next set, then the next, and so on until the final, very clear-looking set, which also had a type of mud made of material different than the mud the tracks were made in. I want to use this photo for my article. Karajou 23:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

So I'm a little late in getting the Great Flood article done; I am going over individual sub-topics for the page, of which you can see it under "fossil tracks" as to what I think should be there...meaning good, solid evidence supporting the Flood for everyone to see. And if you'll look at the talk page, you'll see two "editors" who apparently registered for the purpose of being a pain (they don't like conservatism, the Bible, God, etc)...but I made one dig up info for me on the dino tracks, which I used. I don't think he'll do the same thing for the dino poop, but I'm demanding proof as to how that stuff gets fossilized! Karajou 15:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
And I think I had people yank their hair out! Karajou 15:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Trust me you didn't. I yanked no hair, merely developed a resigned sense of sadness and hopeless compassion. Tmtoulouse 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, at least then I prevented you from a minor investment in Rogaine. Karajou 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


I like Sysop Sharon. She is a very nice person. I disagree with her about something and also disagree with other Sysops about something.

Here is what Sharon wrote: "Please block users guilty of minor vandalism for a short period of time, such as a week or two. Obscenity and Offensive edits are reason for an infinite block without warning."

I also notice that other Sysops give vandals warnings instead of blocking them permanently.

I think we can agree that vandalism is a big problem here and I think we should have a zero tolerance policy for vandals. I don't think it has to be obscene vandalism to block them infinitely for the first offense.

Conservative 21:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Considering that many of these vandals are either confused or potentially good, this seems too extreme. One offense shouldn't be regarded as a block, because it would alienate potential editors and resolidify the negative perception of us amongst pretty much everyone who doesn't contribute here. Can we not assume good faith? --Hojimachongtalk 21:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I usually give vandals an infinite block. The chance of reform seems small, and some expired blocks have resulted in more vandalism. That said, this is up to the discretion of each Sysop.--Aschlafly 21:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I think blatant vandalism with malicious intent (such as vandalizing multiple sites quickly, posting explicitly obscene material, etc.) is worthy of infinite blocking, but questionable vandalism should merit a warning or a short block. That's just my opinion though. ColinRtalk 21:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  • What is the confusion here? Hasn't Aschlafly posted like ONE MILLION times, that major vandals should be removed, minor or questionable acts, perhaps a shorter time, but in all cases, block first, clear it up later. What in the heck is wrong with that? Are people wrongly blocked somehow injured, being denied some "right" by it? Get a grip, people! --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 22:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Dispute Resolution Procedure

Discussion moved to Conservapedia:Proposed Dispute Resolution Process --Hojimachongtalk 23:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)


Do you know why sysop TK has been leaving messages on the discussion pages of myself and Hojimachong calling us "godless pinko liberal commies" and sock puppets? Do you know if this is meant to be a joke or a serious accusation? MountainDew 00:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know. I'll tell him to cease and desist any personal attacks.--Aschlafly 00:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah, there was a sort of running gag on my talk page regarding my list of "accusations" (found on my user page). TK left a nice epithet for me to add to this list. --Hojimachongtalk 01:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I didn't know about that so I was confused when it showed up on my talk page as well. MountainDew 01:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Hmmm, seeing as how it's happened to you as well, I'm not sure his rationale. It's quite odd behavior, as TK has been quite civil in recent engagements. --Hojimachongtalk 01:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Sounds like a misunderstanding. Let's forget about it.--Aschlafly 01:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


I don't understand how he was vandalizing anything. What he added to the article about Lenin appears to be valid. Is there a delete log that I'm missing? I'm just curious. Of course it's your choice to block him if you want, I just thought I'd ask.NSmyth 01:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

These late night blocks are judgment calls. I could be wrong. I thought his change to the Lenin reference was to convert "communism" to "state capitalism", which struck me as vandalism. His user name did not inspire confidence on top of that.
If you'd like to reinstate and watch him, that's fine with me. But my best guess is that he's a vandal. I'm not always right, I admit. But my error rare is probably only about 1% on this. You can decide this one. Thanks.--Aschlafly 01:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Protestwarrior is actually the name of a conservative activist group. But I have to admit that that edit looked suspicious. MountainDew 01:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Giving him the benefit of the doubt - and I don't know if this is what s/he intended - some economists do say that the changes Lenin made when it became clear communism was failing turned the economy closer to a state-run 'capitalist' economy (with competing companies albeit all run by the government). I don't know if this is what protestwarrior was trying to say here. Tracy C Copeland 12:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, I have unblocked Protestwarrior based on the above comments. I did not know the name is associated with a conservative activist group, or that Lenin could be described as implementing state-run capitalism. But note that those two observations are in tension with each other: I doubt both would be true about the same person! And if just one fails, then vandalism seems likely. Time will tell because he's unblocked now!--Aschlafly 14:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


I've just taken some time to go through the user list to block users who I've deemed to either have obscene user names and/or spam user names.

You can flick through some of my blocks in the block log, obviously. I've made it up to user names starting with S. niandra 08:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks a great idea, Niandra, and thanks so much for your effort on this. It really helps clean up the site. I looked at the log and agreed with every one of your blocks. :-) --Aschlafly 09:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

To you, are gays people?

In regards to this link, I am just curious.-AmesG 10:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course, but the user name is inappropriately confrontational. I'd also support blocking a user name of "Liberals are often liars," for example.--Aschlafly 10:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Wrong question. Of course they are. They are just people living in sin like the rest of us. --Ymmotrojam 10:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
"Gays r people" is confrontational? Nematocyte 11:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
It is. Nobody claims gays are not people. The name falsely implies otherwise, and when used on this site the name falsely implies that conservatives claim that gays are not people.--Aschlafly 11:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm on the fence on this one. What about, say, "God is Love?" Intuitively, there seems to be a difference, but I'm not sure I can justify it. Tsumetai 11:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
"God is Love" does not set up a false strawman, or make an implicitly false accusation.--Aschlafly 11:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I suppose it's the 'implicit' part that bothers me a little. I don't really doubt that the user behind that name was indeed coming from the position that you say. I've just always been uncomfortable about actions taken on an 'everybody knows' basis, if you see what I mean. Still, the IP's unblocked, so it's not vitally important. Tsumetai 11:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
What about, a username, "African Americans Are People."-AmesG 11:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Thing is you're equating being gay to something inherent in the person, we're equating it to what the bible says, that it is a choice. Therefore that's a false example. --Ymmotrojam 11:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Where's the bible say that being gay is a choice? It condemns sodomy, but that's it.-AmesG 11:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Sin is a choice, and it condemns it as an abomination or sin. Therefore the bible says it is a choice. --Ymmotrojam 12:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
It also says the act of sodomy is a sin, not the state of feeling attraction to the same sex. It also says the same about eating shellfish, but that tends not to get mentioned so often. Nematocyte 12:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
That's a very convenient way of explaining away what the scripture calls lust. See, sin originates in the thoughts and heart. As Matthew 15:19 puts it, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts...adultery, sexual immorality...". It also says in Romans 1:27 "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another...". It says in 2 Timothy 2:22 that we are to "flee from youthful lusts". Jesus says very clearly in Matthew 5:27-28, "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." --Ymmotrojam 14:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Only two of those verses you quoted mention sin originating in the thoughts and "heart." The Romans and Timothy verses say nothing about the origin of the lust, or at least not in the context you give. ColinRtalk 16:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Only two? How many verses does it take for a doctrine to be inspired, according to the Bible? (I'lllet you think about that one) Besides, I was bringing out two aspects, I wasn't saying that all the verses I mentioned were talking about exactly the same thing. The first concept was the problem of the heart, and the second concept was that we don't have to fulfill the physical bedroom act (to put it bluntly) in order to sin. --Ymmotrojam 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
FOLKS, I need to clean this page soon. Your debate can continue, please continue on a more appropriate entry. Thanks much.  :-) .--Aschlafly 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, those passages are very clear about lust. Not so clear about attraction. Also, you have the emphasis wrong in the last quote. The emphasis should be on "with lust"... merely looking at a woman is not adultery. Myk 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Hypothetically, what if a homosexual man looks at another man with love, not lust? Is it still a sin then? ColinRtalk 16:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I wasn't trying to convey that at all. Of course, I love my father, that doesn't mean I am a homosexual. However, you've already said the man doing the loving is a homosexual, so I wouldn't say "regular" love is impossible, but highly unlikely between another man. Also, one can lust and never fulfill one's passions. That does not mean the lust is approved by the Bible. --Ymmotrojam 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you keep kosher, Ymmotrojam?-AmesG 12:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

A request

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I recommend that you make User:CWilson a Sysop and he wants to be a Sysop. Secondly, can you make me a Beauracrat so I can make people Sysops on my own. Conservative 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

...dude, editors and other sysops loudly argue against you as a sysop and you're asking for EVEN MORE power?
And I haven't seen CWilson around much, I think. Could you elaborate why he would need sysop power and what his shining actions or edits are? Your line of reasoning (other than the fact that he asked you on your Talk page and praised you every now and then) would interest me. Since you sponsor him, I'm sure you have the answer readily available. --Sid 3050 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
The answer is that he an Conservative are ideologically similar.-AmesG 16:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
CWilson would make a great Sysop, being fair and balanced and willing to discuss things *cough, cough*. IMHO, though, only Aschlafly should be given Bureaucrat status, or the elite few. Making too many Bureaucrats would add to the number of Sysops, and this would make the title of "Sysop" much less valuable. The current 'crats are doing a fine job. --Hojimachongtalk 17:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
SharonS does a good job as well. (Maybe I'm just biased because she's the one who promoted me.) MountainDew 17:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
On a personal level, I'm tending towards "No, thanks" (regarding the sysop request) after the short debate with him on my Talk page. Not that my voice carries much weight around here. Just noting. *shrugs* --Sid 3050 18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Keeping personal feelings out of this. Opinion was less based on the candidate and more on the nominator, so I'll stay as neutral as possible in this issue. And if Hoji thinks the guy is okay, that's a boost of faith for me, too. :) --Sid 3050 19:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

On a side note, I think Ed Poor would make quite a good sysop; he knows a lot about Wiki software and programming, and sysopping him would give him some more leeway on changing things about. Just my $0.02. --Hojimachongtalk 19:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Isn't there a discussion page, accessible only by Sysop's, for recommendations and discussion? If not, there should be. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 20:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
    • There is a sysop-only IRC channel. I gave the password to Hojimachong and he got on the channel earlier this evening. I don't know how to make a private wiki page for this, but I've heard it can be done, if you prefer taking that route. There's also e-mail. --Ed Poor 21:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, giving it to only one Sysop is kind of insulting, lol. I hope whoever is there enjoys it. I was rather in hope the Webmaster or Andy would comment on this, or perhaps make a page available for it on our special pages. ;-) .. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 21:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
As CP grows it might be wise to institute some sort of sysop mentoring so the "tricks-of-the-trade" can be more efficiently passed down from experienced sysop to the novice.
I'd be in favor of both CWilson getting sysop status and Conservative being bumped up to bureaucrat. --Crackertalk 22:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • It is just insulting, the appalling lack of communication. How can self-professed Christian people excuse their lack of common courtesy? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 22:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Do we need more bureaucrats? Why? Are so many people being made sysops that the job is overwhelming the bureaucrats we have already? Dpbsmith 22:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Sysop promotion

It seems to me that Sysops should be like the royal guards or Secret Service. Promotion should be based on competence, commitment, shrewd and fair blocking, and a good work ethic. The rules set the policy, and the students set the rules. Lots of good entries by an editor are the best indicator of who would make a good Sysop. Several of the best Sysops probably disagree with me about ideology. So do some of my students. Conservapedia is really based on confidence that good rules will result in a superior product, and I do think our rules are much better than Wikipedia's.--Aschlafly 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

What is the ratio of sysops to editors that have made more than, lets say 50 edits to non-talk pages that are not currently blocked? --Mtur 19:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't know. But I think that ratio is pretty low.--Aschlafly 20:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hi Andy,

Thanks for protecting those pages. I would offer you some advice here. Please consult Seescandy vs. Columbia for current case law on dealing with anonymous editors. They are heavily protected and in several states the damages can be statuatory. If any of these anonymous users get beareucrat status, grant themselves checkuser group membership, then obtain IP address information on other users and barter is back to Wikipedia or off your site, you will be liable. I would recommend keeping beareucratic control for yourself. You may not expose anonymous speakers, and if you do so, you will expose your project and yourself to liablity. In the absence of any privacy policy on the issue of IP address access by anonymous third parties, you have huge exposure. Just friendly advice. RW3 22:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Double redirects

Would it be possible to update MediaWiki:Movepagetext to include a mention about double-redirects, along the lines of Wikipedia's version? Currently, because Movepagetext is blank, it defaults to a blurb that doesn't mention the double-redirect problem. I patrol and fix double-redirects as much as possible (via Special:DoubleRedirects), but it seems like a number of people either don't know about them, or forget to check for them. --Interiot 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Edit of Intelligent design - censoring of facts

With this edit, Conservative changed the number of articles from "one" to "many" without citing the "many" and removed the reference that the single article that was submitted to the journal was removed. This edit misleads the reader as to the stance of the journal. Immediately after this edit he protected the wiki page. I was under the impression that facts were not to be censored. --Mtur 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that there should at least have been discussion and justification given for reverting and locking in this case. MountainDew 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I see the need to use a new logo while BillOReillyFan's logo's problems are worked out, and I like the general idea of the new logo, but it has a few problems. First, I don't think it looks as professional and glitzy as the other one did. Second, the end of the last red bar just a bit short of the right side of the logo box looks a little tacky. I'm really picky on website logos. I think that when they're done well, they add a lot, but when done poorly, they truly make a site look worse than it was without a logo. Towards that end, I suggest that you remove any logo until you get a new one, or I would happily design a simple interim logo for you. I promise it would be professional-quality and have no hidden alpha-channel messages. I'm quite good with Photoshop ;-)-AmesG 17:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I support this idea, one can read my criticism of the current logo on the main talk page. ColinRtalk 18:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Let it never be said that I have never constructively assisted this site ;-). I hope you consider using it; I think it's pretty good, or at least better. I release all rights etc. etc. and I do hope you use it. This was a quick rendition; let me know if you like the general idea and would like just a more well-thought-out version of it.-AmesG 18:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

WOW!! That looks great! I'll make sure our student panel sees it now.--Aschlafly 20:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If you could match up the "Conservapedia" font with something that went with the calligraphic nature of the Constitution's script I think that would look swell. --Crackertalk 20:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, can you upload this in 300-dpi, perhaps with Cracker's suggestion? A magazine (Newsmax), to which I'm sure you subscribe (ha ha ha), wants to run a logo for Conservapedia soon and yours is a frontrunner. The students will be ones who decide.--Aschlafly 20:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
How nice. I'm kinda relieved someone didn't just take a picture of a reproduction of the constitution and slap a typographically barren brand on it. That woulda been horrible. --BillOReillyFan 22:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
BillOReillyFan, this is not the first instance of sarcasm by you that I've noticed. Hmmm. Have you figured out who hacked into your computer yet?--Aschlafly 22:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Wow, look out, he's sharp. --BillOReillyFan 22:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well I hope this [[2]] is just sarcasm. It puzzled me. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 00:31, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Not at all. Liberals do actually do that. Pat Buchanan told me so. --BillOReillyFan 00:35, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Ummm... so this discussion has become... interesting, but Andy, yeah, I'm working on the new script thing. BillOReillyFan's right, it is really simple & quick, but I feel that simplicity has its virtues, and it is devoid of obscenity at least. I'll upload a 300dpi version to show you before I go to bed.-AmesG 00:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Removed BillOReillyFan's comments - Bill, if you're reading this, you and I probably agree on some politics, but your methods leave a lot to be desired.-AmesG 00:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
There's nothing wrong with my methods. I've given no less seriousness to this joke of a website than it deserves. What is happening here is repugnant. The real vandalism is the pseudoscience being passed off as valid theory; this website vandalizes the very concept of truth. --BillOReillyFan
So I have. How cute. --BillOReillyFan

Hey Andy, here's the logo as requested. Maybe I didn't say this before, but I especially like the message it conveys, because you won't find a liberal or a conservative who doesn't believe in the greatness of this document, and the nobility of its goal of setting up a government that protects its peoples' freedoms. We may all debate angrily here, but at the end of the day, our baseline is the same: the Constitution.

Anyways, on the image itself, I don't know if it's 300 dpi... errr... how do I make sure it is? But this is a scripty font, please let me know if this is more what you guys were thinking. Thanks for all the suggestions, and thanks, Andy, for your encouragement. -AmesG 01:06, 24 March

The old one: before being finalized, it would be re-done at higher resolution
So BenjaminS thinks it should be less bold & fancy and more like the old one. Thoughts?-AmesG 01:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

MountainDew prefers the script. By the way, there may be debate on this subject at this link.-AmesG 01:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, honestly, I prefer logo. PhilipB has done a GREAT job.-AmesG 02:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Extensions for group-based access and stuff

Since I've seen this one every now and then, here's what people might mean when they want group-based page access. As a side note, could we maybe get Parser functions, too (if they haven't been implemented in the last x days, I didn't check recently)? They would make a few templates more powerful, from what I see (I'm no specialist, but they could come in handy, for example to include only mainspace pages from ending up in the "Citations needed" category.

I'm not certain that the access extension is exactly what you're looking for, but it's what looked the most plausible when I browsed the extension category. Also apologies if this is well-known already. --Sid 3050 21:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Blocking due to IP

I'm not sure I agree with you blocking users merely because their IP's aren't exactly where they claim to be. ISP's are often located far away from where the user is; for example, I was in a dispute with a man from Pakistan, and his ISP traced to Malaysia! I think blocking should be based on value of contributions, not a sketchy-at-best assumption of lies. Just wanted to let you know, --Hojimachongtalk 21:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I just ran checkuser and the IP goes to an open proxy (Place where vandals can sneak in). We can't unblock the IP. Geo. 21:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Spam Filter Puzzle

Example #2 [3] uses a link to Israel News Agency, however recently when I tried to link to that same source

it was blocked by a spam filter. Can anybody explain this or help out? There is also a third article which may be useful. RobS 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

RobS, that baffled me also. I'll copy and post this on my talk page to see if our gurus know why.--Aschlafly 23:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I can answer that - your spam filter has spotted the following, and assumed that it's an indecent site from the name: Tracy C Copeland 23:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Wow, you're sharp!--Aschlafly 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, she beat me to the punch by over an hour! Andrew, she's been a great help with several pages. Keep an eye on her. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 00:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I wonder, next time you're ready to promote someone to SYSOP =

are you going to wonder to yourself "Is this another one of BillOReillyFan's alter egos?" Banning me is a futile gesture. I've got twice as many IPs as you can ban, and I've already demonstrated I have no problem spending hours on valid edits just to mask my subversions and build my credibility. And I hope many others follow my suit. I want this entire malediction to crumble under the weight of dissent. I'm not going anywhere, but trust me, you're not going to find me until I want to be found. Happy hunting. --MarkyH 02:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Banned. Begone, sockpuppet! --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 02:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, good luck with that. I have more IPs than you have scientific delusions. --BillOReillyFan
    • I suppose this means we need to watch everybody's edits, then. Thanks for showing your hand so early. MountainDew 02:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Good luck with that too. You think you'll be able to spot me if I make a few hundred of what you would consider good edits? Like I said. You won't know it's me until I let you know its me. --BillOReillyFan
Man, that sounds like a LOT of work........are you sure its worth it? Hey we need something better to call you then BillOReillyfan, do you have like some cool hacker name we could you? Tmtoulouse 02:27, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I will compile a list at User:Geo.plrd/reilly. Will someone try and find an ISP? Geo. 02:29, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
lots of people are doing the same thing on Wikipedia, like Daniel Brandt and all the pranksters from Encyclopedia Dramatica. Noodles 02:32, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
While I am finding his antics to be infinitely entertaining, I am going to offer some advice in regards to this situation. Devoting a page to him, and hunting down an ISP is doing exactly what he wants. He is threatening to basically help out the site with several hundred positive edits then do something sneaky and disruptive, like the logo, which will probably be entertaining and ultimately fixable. I think the site gets the better end of the bargain. If you are going to start hunting down every puppet he creates, do it in private, attention is part of it. Tmtoulouse 02:35, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
like pull off a Sigenthaler prank, and cause the site's traffic to shoot through the roof. Noodles 02:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Mockery is what put this site on the map after all :). Tmtoulouse 02:38, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Attention is nothing to do with it. I do genuinely want to see this tragedy of a website fail miserably. That's my goal. Through the talk page on Wikipedia I've come into contact with six others who are doing the exact same thing, although you're completely oblivious to them so far, I hope. Who knows how many others are lurking out there? What happens when one of them gets SYSOP and can start tearing things up? I guess we'll find out some time soon. --Integritas 02:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Eh, how much irreversible damage can really be done? Back ups of back ups pervade most of the wiki structure. Thing is, BillOReilyFan, man we need a new name for you seriously, this site is tanking all on its own because of the oppressive way it is handling issues such as the theory of evolution and rogue sysops like conservative. Would you rather see this site fail because of internal instability that is inherent to its very basic structure, or your external influence....Tmtoulouse 02:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
No joke. Every edit gets reviewed, anyway. MountainDew 02:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

URGENT EMAIL MESSAGE Sent to your account regarding the logo problems. --Hojimachongtalk 02:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Darn, he turned into a mustache twirling villain pretty quickly.Myk 04:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

"Mark As Patrolled" ?

What is this feature? I must have missed the memo again! --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 03:04, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

You mean this? --Sid 3050 12:07, 24 March 2007 (EDT)


why don\'t you just get a professional logo design company to make a logo for you?