User talk:RSchlafly

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RSchlafly (Talk | contribs) at 23:51, January 31, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

ARCHIVES: 1

Clean

Enjoy your nice, clean talk page! --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 19:15, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

I would appreciate your support

Dear RSchlafly,

I am sending you a note about the uncited template and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia.

The Conservapedia article on homosexuality is now ranked in the top 10 of http://www.google.com searches. I estimate that the Conservapedia article on homosexuality is giving 300-400 people new people a day to know about Conservapedia who wouldn't otherwise know about it. When the article is in the top 5 of the search engine rankings it will bring in SUBSTANTIALLY more as the top 5 entries get the lion's share of the internet traffic.

Now a main reason why the Conservapedia homosexuality article is ranked in the top 10 is that the search engines highly reward articles with footnotes that link to other interent websites. Accordingly, since our uncited template is successful in getting people to cite their material as Andy Schlafly stated, I made note of the uncited template in the following Conservapedia articles:

Conservapedia:Commandments: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments

Conservapedia Manual of Style: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style

Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help

Currently about 50% of Conservapedia articles are completely uncited and a high percentage of articles that are cited are poorly cited. If this persist, not many people are going to know about Conservapedia as our articles will be poorly ranked by the search engines. However, I strongly believe that the uncited template will make a substantial difference.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your efforts in supporting the uncited template.

Conservative 15:40, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

*Conservative, around here, it is the practice of all Sysops, except you, to discuss changes before implementing them, and asking for support. The Commandments may only be changed upon direct approval from Andy. You did not receive this direct approval, no? Kindly try and act like a mannered person, post your proposals to the Sysops and Andy, then be prepared for discussion and support, not the other way around. I could support your idea, except for the encouragement of placing templates without limitiation. We have far too much clutter already, and your failing to limit template placement, by stating some guideline for what a minimum number of citations is, will lead to chaos and endless debate as to how many are too few and how many are "enough". Thanks. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 15:52, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

1992 Election

Nice revert. Ferret 18:51, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Since in the United States, Ferret, we do not elect our President's with a direct popular vote, and never have, references to who won a majority percentage of the vote are misnomers. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
Yep, realise that's not how it works. It's an interesting and quite deliberate part of the design on behalf of the founding fathers. It's not about winning a majority of the voters across the nation, it's about winning a majority of the voters in the right number of states, with smaller states deliberately getting more than their proportional weight of the electoral college. I think it's a beautiful system that works as well with 50 states in 2004 as it does with 13 (vote counting issues aside!). Whether a particular president won a plurality, or absolute majority, of the vote is of interest for that very reason - it illustrates the system working exactly the way it's designed to work. Bush got the votes he needed in the states he needed - Gore did not. Simple as that, isn't it? (OK, it wasn't THAT simple, but let's not go there!) Ferret 05:57, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for adding the percentage on that election. -Additioner 14:49, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Catch-22

Which novel are you referring to 'published ten years earlier' on the Catch-22 page? Maestro 17:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

See [1] or [2]. RSchlafly 18:21, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Hi! :)

Thanks for adding a new article, in this case kluge. Please, though, categorize your articles when you create them; while there are those of us who will go through and clean-up the uncategorized articles, you know your subject better than we do.

For a list of categories, go here: Special:Categories. To add a category to your article, type two open brackets, then "category:" followed by the category you want. Just add two closed brackets and you're done! You can add as many categories as you feel are appropriate. Thanks! Aziraphale 02:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Theory and Fact

Please try and remain civil when it comes to altering other people's edits - there was no reason to refer to the information as "junk". If you thought it was verbose you could have just said so. Regardless, I am going to reinsert some information in a less confounding way. At the moment the flimsy terse mention of biological evolution in the article is insufficient for anyone to understand the what is considered fact and what is considered theory. It's a great example for the article. However, I don't want an edit war so my changes will only be minute at first. Regards. Wisdom89 12:19, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

I was civil. If I thought that verbosity were the problem, I would have said so. The reinserted text is wrong and confusing. RSchlafly 12:54, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
Absolutely not. There is nothing wrong with the information. If you have counter evidence regarding Modern synthesis or that evolutionists refer to the science as both a fact and theory, then that would be one thing. However, based on your actions, I can only presume that you simply don't want the information posted. Things aren't incorrect simply because you say so. If you require sources I'd be more than happy to supply them - but by dismissing the information, removing it without notification and referring to it as "junk" is slightly inflammatory. At least that's how I'm taking it. My edits are in good faith and meant to help the project of conservapedia. If you doubt this at all, just look at my edit history. Anyway, it would have been better had you and I discussed the changes first. Wisdom89 14:04, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
Your presumptions are incorrect. Evidence for and against the modern synthesis is irrelevant. The article is just about some simple definitions. I have posted on the Talk pages an example of how your own text contradicts your own sources. RSchlafly 15:04, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Twin Primes question

Roger, do you think there are an infinite number of twin primes? Do you think it is provable (though obviously not proven yet)?--Aschlafly 19:53, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

I would guess yes, but until someone solves the problem, no one knows for sure. RSchlafly 20:53, 3 September 2007 (EDT)


Shawshank Redemption

[3]"A new prisoner called Tommy comes to Shawshank prison. Tommy tells another prisoner, who tells Andy, that Tommy had had a cellmate at a different prison who bragged about killing a rich golfer and some hot-shot banker's wife, and the banker getting jailed for it. This is clearly the real killer of Andy's wife. Andy sees the possibility of a new trial since this evidence would prove his innocence. Warden Norton dismisses the story, telling Andy to ignore this made up story. When Andy argues with him warden Norton sends Andy to solitary confinement, to remind Andy of his place in the prison hierarchy." --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 05:22, 8 September 2007 (EDT)[

That is just an argument for a court action. Nowhere does the movie say that Andy was innocent, or that he was wrongly convicted. If Andy is innocent, as you say, then for what is he being redeemed? RSchlafly 06:08, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
I will email Steven King and ask, Roger. I just remember it from the book and movie, is all....so it must have been important to the story, otherwise I would imagine King would have snipped it. Argument for a court action? Lawyers have enough business! The way he was given the news, not expecting it, nor thinking it was coming, seems to indicate he wasn't looking for a ploy. I will revert myself back in the movie list, if you haven't already, pending my hearing back from King. Fair enough? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 06:35, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
Whether Andy was expecting the news, or looking for a ploy, is irrelevant. He is likely to jump on any opportunity to get out of prison. The beginning of the movie show overwhelming evidence against Andy in court. It avoids showing the murderer when the trigger is pulled. Apparently the movie wanted to create some ambiguity. My question for you: Under your interpretation, what is the "redemption" of the title? RSchlafly 14:24, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Redemption comes in many packages, I have found. Perhaps the humanity, the ability of some to maintain and even nurture the type of complex "friendship" (humanity) that the characters actually developed, in spite of their circumstances, is the "redemption". Writers speak constantly in metaphors, and not all of them built on sound ground, but in some loose manner, the characters were role-reversed, eh? The prison guard in his own prison, without walls, and the inmate in an actual one, yet actually more free? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:16, 8 September 2007 (EDT)


Vandal

I found a vandal named spoonboy. It seems that he deliberately changed information on the Post-Diluvian Diasporas article in order to make a mockery out of Conservapedia. He also messed up the link on the page. Please examine his edits and take action if necessary. Lukecorlando 22:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Don Imus Edits

When you remove the specific insults that Imus used, you remove the whole point of caring about things like racism and sexism. I suppose what you're suggesting is that those two things (racism and sexism) are acceptable? Perhaps we should just overlook them? If we are to learn anything from what Mr. Imus said and what happened to him as a result, we need to know exactly WHY he was fired. Now that he's been rehired by conservative bastion 770 WABC in New York, has the conservative agenda been amended to include "protect Imus?"

Again, when you remove what he said from the article, you remove any idea about how WRONG what he said was. This seems to me to be an attempt to soft-soap a racist, sexist comment. I wonder why you wish to do this. Perhaps you, yourself, agree with Mr. Imus' statements? Do YOU believe that the Rutgers University Ladies Basketball Team is a bunch of "nappy-headed hoes?" This seems a gross and base mischaracterization of a group of ladies I'm sure you are not personally acquainted with.

Since Conservapedia makes the claim that it is non-biased, and that it is supposedly the alternative to the liberal-biased WikiPedia (and the accuracy of that assessment is something I leave to another debate at another time), WHY, sir, have you seemingly attempted to slant things to FAVOR a radio personality who made RACIST and SEXIST remarks and who is employed by a major conservative media outlet?

I await your response, sir, with something approaching eagerness. Artiefisk 19:00, 27 January 2008 (EDT)

I did not remove the quote. It was someone else. You are complaining to the wrong guy. RSchlafly 21:30, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Since there was no contribution between mine and yours, sir, I feel that you are fibbing. Peruse the history of the Don Imus page and see. Perhaps someone else made the revision and used your name? Unlikely. My only conclusion is that you or someone using your name condones institutional racism and sexism in the mainstream media. If this is true of you, you ought to be ashamed. If it is someone else using your name, you ought to be outraged. Either way, at least ACT like you care. Artiefisk 15:30, 29 January 2008 (EDT)

I checked the history. You inserted the quote here [4] and it was removed by [User:Iduan], not me. I merely shortened your mischaracterization of what Imus said. You wrote that Imus "classified a group of female athletes as women of decidedly ill repute". That was just not correct. Imus did not say that anyone had ill repute. Please do not make false accusations against either Don Imus or me. RSchlafly 16:15, 29 January 2008 (EST)

How did I make false accusations against Don Imus? He called those women "nappy-headed hoes." Where I come from, "nappy-headed" is meant as an insult against the typically tightly-curled African-American hair type. "Ho," in common use, is slang for a "whore" or "prostitute," which, when you clean it up for the good old "family-friendly" Conservapedia, means "woman of ill repute." So, to insult typically African-American hair type, and to call these women "prostitutes," hmmm, I dunno, seems like RACISM and SEXISM to me. One doesn't have to be a trust fund baby to deny the truth, but it helps, I suppose. Good day, sir. Artiefisk 16:30, 31 January 2008 (EDT)

You are welcome to your opinions, but your edit was inaccurate. RSchlafly 18:51, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RSchlafly&oldid=383063"