Belarus

(Difference between revisions)

The Republic of Belarus is a country in Eastern Europe and former constituent republic of the USSR. The capital of Belarus is Minsk. Alexander Lukashenko rules his country dictatorial. During a visit in Warsaw, The Republican candidate for the Presidential Election 2012 Mitt Romney said:

Unfortunately, there are parts of the world today where the desire to be free is met with brutal oppression: Just to the east of here, the people of Belarus suffer under the oppressive weight of dictatorship[1] if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Belarus is a land-locked country, sharing a common border with the Baltic States of Latvia and Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. The country is generally low-lying, with marshes and thick wooded areas. The Dnieper, Prypyats, and Nyoman rivers are its major waterways.

Area: 207,600 sq. km. (80,100 sq. mi.); slightly smaller than Kansas. Cities: Capital--Minsk. Terrain: Landlocked, low-lying with thick forests, flat marshes and fields. Climate: Cold winters, cool and moist summers, transitional between continental and maritime. Population (July 2009 est.): 9,648,533 (urban 73%; rural 27%). Population decline (2009 est.): -0.378%. Ethnic groups (1999 census): Belarusian (81.2%), Russian (11.4%), Polish (3.9%), Ukrainian (2.4%), Jewish (0.3%), other (0.8%). Religions (2004 est.): Eastern Orthodox 80%, Catholic 14%, Protestant 2%, other (including Autocephalous Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, and Krishna) 4%. Languages: Belarusian and Russian (official). Education: Literacy--99.6%. Health: Infant mortality rate (2009 est.)--6.43/1,000. Life expectancy (2009 est.)--70.63 years (men 64.95 years, women 76.67 years). Work force (4.3 million as of December 31, 2005): Industry—34.7%; agriculture and forestry--14%; construction--7.9%; transportation, communications--7.6%; trade, catering--12.2%; education--10.7%; other--24.3%.

The constitution provides for a directly elected president who serves a 5-year term. The bicameral parliament consists of the 64-seat Council of the Republic and the 110-seat House of Representatives. The Council of the Republic is the house of territorial representation. Eight members of the Council are appointed directly by the president of the Republic of Belarus, while local regional councils elect the rest. The deputies to the House of Representatives are elected directly by the voters. The president appoints the prime minister, who is the head of government.

Since his election in July 1994 as the country's first President, Alyaksander Lukashenka has consolidated power steadily in the executive branch through authoritarian means and has dominated all branches of government. He used a non-democratic referendum in November 1996 to amend the 1994 constitution to broaden his powers and illegally extend his term in office. He began to count his 5-year term in 1996, thereby adding 2 years to his first term in office. Based on the unrecognized 1996 constitution, Lukashenka announced that presidential elections were to be held in 2001. In 2004, he engineered a fraudulent referendum that removed term limits on the presidency. Independent exit polling of the referendum showed results far different from those officially announced. In 2006, Lukashenka "won" another term in an undemocratic election. In January 2007, he further consolidated his rule through local elections that failed to meet international standards.

In October 2000, parliamentary elections occurred for the first time since the disputed referendum of 1996. According to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), these elections failed to meet international democratic standards. International monitors noted sweeping human rights violations and undemocratic practices throughout the election period, including massive vote-counting fraud. These irregularities led the OSCE/ODIHR to find that these elections failed to meet Belarus' OSCE commitments for democratic elections. March 2003 local elections and October 2004 parliamentary elections also failed to meet international standards of freedom and fairness. OSCE/ODIHR observers declared that the parliamentary elections fell far short of international standards, citing abuses in the campaign period and the vote counting.

The March 19, 2006 presidential election marked another low point in the government's treatment of its own citizens. OSCE/ODIHR observers noted that the election failed to meet international standards, was characterized by a disregard for the basic rights of freedom of assembly, association, and expression, and included a highly problematic vote count. Authorities detained many opposition and civic activists during the campaign and used force against demonstrators protesting the fraudulent election. Opposition presidential candidate Alyaksandr Kazulin was beaten and arrested during post-election protests. He was sentenced to a 5-year jail term. The Belarusian authorities released Kazulin on August 16, 2008.

Belarus held parliamentary elections in late September 2008. Despite Belarusian authorities’ public assurances that the elections would be “unprecedentedly” democratic and transparent, the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission determined the elections fell short of OSCE standards. The authorities denied registration for approximately 20% of opposition candidates as well as candidates overall. While candidates were allotted their mandatory campaign airtime on various media outlets, restrictions on this access made it difficult for candidates to adequately present their platforms to the public. OSCE/ODIHR observers noted good access to polling stations during early voting and election day. However, the Belarusian authorities fell short on access for OSCE/ODIHR and other observers to the vote count, a crucial aspect for determining the transparency of the elections. OSCE/ODIHR observers assessed transparency of the vote count to have been bad or very bad in 48% of observed cases. The OSCE recognized minor improvements in the conduct of the elections, but the lack of a transparent vote count made it impossible to determine the validity of the elections. The Department of State issued a statement following OSCE/ODIHR’s preliminary assessment, expressing disappointment with the failure of the Belarusian elections to meet international standards.

President--Alexander Lukashenko Prime Minister--Mikhail Myasnikovich Foreign Minister--Sergei Martynau Ambassador to the U.S.--Mikhail Khvostov Ambassador to the UN--Andrey Dapkiunis

Under an arrangement with the former U.S.S.R., Belarus was an original member of the United Nations. It also is a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS - a group of 12 former Soviet republics) and its customs union, the Belarusian and Russian Union State, the Eurasian Economic Community, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Partnership for Peace, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, the Non-Aligned Movement, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.

Following the recognition of Belarus as an independent state in December 1991 by the European Community, EU-Belarus relations initially experienced a steady progression. The signature of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) in 1995 signaled a commitment to political, economic, and trade cooperation. Significant assistance was provided to Belarus within the framework of the TACIS technical assistance program and also through various aid programs and loans. However, progress in EU-Belarus relations stalled in 1996 after serious setbacks in the development of democracy. The EU did not recognize the 1996 constitution that replaced the 1994 constitution. Neither the PCA nor its trade-related elements were implemented, and Belarus was not invited to join the EU's Neighborhood Policy. Belarusian membership in the Council of Europe was not supported, bilateral relations at the ministerial level were suspended, and EU technical assistance programs were frozen. In 1998, relations were further worsened when President Lukashenka evicted several western ambassadors from their homes in the Drozdy area of Minsk. In 2004, the Council of Europe adopted a report written by special rapporteur Christos Pourgourides calling on Belarusian authorities to suspend various high-level officials after conducting a thorough investigation of the cases of several prominent Belarusian political figures who have disappeared and remain unaccounted for. In line with the U.S., the EU spoke strongly against the government's conduct of the 2006 election, noting that additional restrictive measures would be imposed against those officials responsible for abuses. After the election, the U.S. and EU imposed travel restrictions and financial sanctions against those responsible for abuses. The EU also launched a two-year, two million Euro project to support Belarusian access to independent information, which complements U.S. assistance programs. In June 2007, the EU announced the withdrawal of GSP trade preferences for Belarus, following an assessment by the International Labor Organization that Belarus had not acted to ensure the protection of labor rights and freedom of association. After the September 2008 parliamentary elections, the EU issued a statement expressing its concern about the conduct of the elections, which despite some progress did not correspond to the OSCE’s democratic standards. In October 2008, the EU suspended its visa sanctions for six months on numerous Belarusian officials, including President Lukashenka, in response to Belarus’ release of political prisoners in August; this suspension has been extended until December 2009. In May 2009, the EU invited Belarus to take part in the Eastern Partnership Initiative.

Acknowledging the lack of progress in relation to bilateral relations and the internal situation following the position adopted in 1997, the EU adopted a benchmark approach in 1999, whereby relations would be gradually improved upon fulfillment of the four benchmarks set by the OSCE. In 2000, some moderately positive developments toward the implementation of recommendations made by the OSCE Advisory and Monitoring Group (AMG) were observed, but were not sufficient in the realm of access to fair and free elections. The Belarusian authorities, objecting to the OSCE AMG's activities, forced it to shutdown by failing to renew visas or extend accreditation of its professional staff. The Belarusian authorities agreed to a successor OSCE presence after 14 EU member countries and the U.S. imposed visa restrictions on the travel of high-ranking Belarusian officials. The OSCE Office in Minsk formally came into existence on January 1, 2003 with a mandate to "assist the Belarusian authorities in further promoting institution-building, in further consolidating the Rule of Law and in developing relations with civil society, in accordance with OSCE principles and commitments."

Russia is the largest partner for Belarus in the economic and political fields. In terms of trade, over one-third of Belarusian exports go to Russia. Due to the structure of Belarusian industry, Belarus relies heavily on other CIS countries, and Russia in particular, both for export markets and for the supply of raw materials, subsidized energy, and components. The steep increase in the price of natural gas in 2007, as well as higher tariffs on Russian-sourced oil and oil products, has contributed to a crisis in the Belarusian economy, forcing the regime to cut popular subsidies and to borrow from outside sources to finance the budget. Belarus received a $1.5 billion stabilization loan in late 2007 and a $2 billion loan in late 2008 from Russia.

The framework for the Russia-Belarusian Union was set out in the Treaty on the Formation of a Community of Russia and Belarus (1996), the Treaty on Russia-Belarus Union, the Union Charter (1997), and the Treaty of the Formation of a Union State (1999). The integration treaties contain commitments to monetary union, equal rights, single citizenship, and a common foreign and defense policy. They also have established a range of institutions modeled after the EU. After protracted disputes and setbacks, the two countries' customs duties were unified as of March 2001. Belarus has made progress in monetary stabilization in the context of ongoing negotiation with the Russian Central Bank on monetary union. However, Belarus has repeatedly pushed back the date for implementing a monetary union. A dispute with Russia in late 2006 and early 2007 over gas prices and oil import duties raised further doubts about the future of the union, and many of the provisions of the union have yet to be implemented. Most recently, talks in October 2008 focused on plans to move forward with unification of customs rates for the Union State, supposedly to be completed by the end of the year, and the use of the Russian ruble for mutual payments. South Ossetia and Abkhazia have both expressed interest in joining the Union State, and in order for them to do so, their application must first be approved by the Union Parliament, and then the presidents of Belarus and Russia must approve the Parliament’s resolution to accept Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Condoleezza Rice counted Belarus as a part of the Outposts of tyranny.

The United States continues to support Belarus' adherence to arms control agreements and treaties into which it has previously entered, including the Open Skies Treaty, which Belarus ratified in 2001. Cooperation in all such agreements has been exemplary.

Humanitarian aid continues to be the primary engagement between the U.S. military and Belarus. Humanitarian assistance programs have provided a tangible, long-lasting service and have encouraged goodwill toward the U.S. Government and the U.S. military. Humanitarian assistance has two principal elements--the Humanitarian Assistance Program-Excess Property donates non-lethal goods and technical assistance for humanitarian purposes while other assistance focuses on projects such as the refurbishment of medical facilities and the construction of school buildings.

Direct military to military cooperation continues to be minimal. Belarus currently has no International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, and bilateral exercises and cooperation are nonexistent. There is a great desire on the Belarusian side to re-establish such cooperation and contacts, but it has not been possible due to the political situation. The only program that is still functional within this category is the attendance of Belarusian military officers at George C. Marshall Center programs.

Belarus is currently cooperating with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, through the Partnership for Peace Trust Fund, to destroy a total of 700,000 conventional landmines. Belarus also has a stockpile of over 3 million non-conventional anti-personnel mines, which it pledged to destroy by March 2008. However, the bidding process for the project of destroying the mines is still ongoing. In addition, there are numerous World War II-vintage minefields, which are still in place and kill or injure several Belarusians every year.

The Ministry of Defense is experiencing success in the area of military reform. Planned changes include combining the Air and Air Defense Forces, downsizing the force structure about 30% from 83,000 to 60,000, transitioning from a conscript to a contract force, and modernizing the command and control structure by creating a Ground Forces Command between the Ministry of Defense and the units in the field. Implementation of these reforms will take an unspecified amount of time.

There have been numerous reports of Belarusian sales or delivery of weapons or weapons-related technologies to states of concern, including state sponsors of terrorism. In April and September 2004, the United States imposed sanctions on a Belarusian entity, Belvneshpromservice, pursuant to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 for the transfer to Iran of items on a multilateral export control list, or items having the potential of making a material contribution to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), or cruise or ballistic missile systems.

As part of the former Soviet Union, Belarus had a relatively well-developed industrial base; it retained this industrial base following the breakup of the U.S.S.R. The country also has a broad agricultural base and a high education level. Among the former republics of the Soviet Union, it had one of the highest standards of living. But Belarusians now face the difficult challenge of moving from a state-run economy with a high priority on military production and heavy industry to a civilian, free-market system.

After an initial outburst of capitalist reform from 1991-94, including privatization of state enterprises, creation of institutions of private property, and development of entrepreneurship, Belarus has greatly slowed under Lukashenka, and in many cases, reversed its pace of privatization and other market reforms while emphasizing the need for a "socially oriented market economy." About 80% of all industry remains in state hands, and foreign investment has been hindered by a climate hostile to business. The banks, which had been privatized after independence, were renationalized under Lukashenka. The government has also renationalized companies using the "Golden Share" mechanism, which allows government control in all companies with foreign investment, as well as through other administrative means.

Economic output, which declined for several years, revived in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but the economy has been dependent on heavy discounts in oil and natural gas prices from Russia. Belarus has historically re-exported the oil and oil products at world market prices, using the windfall profits to subsidize state enterprises. In December 2006, Belarus and Russian gas giant Gazprom signed a deal which will eventually end Russia's subsidies of gas for Belarus. Under the deal, Gazprom raised prices for Belarus gas deliveries in 2007 to $100 per 1,000 cubic meters, a significant rise from the subsidized previous price of $46, but still far less than the price paid by EU member states. The price for Russian gas will continue to increase incrementally until 2011, when it will equal the price paid by EU members. However, Belarusian officials stated in late 2008 and early 2009 Belarus’ interest in postponing the rise to EU prices until 2014-2015. Under the 2006 agreement, Gazprom will also gradually acquire a 50% stake in Beltransgaz, the Belarusian gas pipeline firm. In January 2007, Russia followed up with a steep duty on oil deliveries, which caused a significant drop in revenue from exports of oil products and Russian-sourced crude oil. The increase in gas prices and simultaneous moves by Moscow to reduce the profitability of refining Russian oil in Belarus for re-export disrupted plans to upgrade industries ranging from oil refining to cement production.

Peat, the country's most valuable mineral resource, is used for fuel, for fertilizer, and in the chemical industry. Belarus also has deposits of clay, sand, chalk, dolomite, phosphorite, and rock and potassium salt. Forests cover about a third of the land, and lumbering is an important occupation. Potatoes, flax, hemp, sugar beets, rye, oats, and wheat are the chief agricultural products. Dairy and beef cattle, pigs, and chickens are raised. Belarus has only small reserves of petroleum and natural gas, and it imports most of its oil and gas from Russia. The main branches of industry produce tractors and trucks, earthmovers for use in construction and mining, metal-cutting machine tools, agricultural equipment, motorcycles, chemicals, fertilizer, textiles, and consumer goods. The chief trading partners are Russia, Germany, Ukraine, and Poland.

The massive April 26, 1986 nuclear accident at the Chernobyl power plant, across the border in Ukraine, had a devastating effect on Belarus. As a result of the radiation released, agriculture in a large part of the country was destroyed and many villages were abandoned. Resettlement and medical costs were substantial and long-term. Many living in Chernobyl afflicted zones have infrequent access to medical treatment due to remoteness, inadequate equipment, and substantial costs. Although the Belarusian authorities claim otherwise, many radiation monitoring stations, especially in rural areas, are either ill-equipped, poorly staffed, and/or no longer in operation. Resettlement of those in affected areas remains incomplete.

Due to the economic and political climate, little new foreign investment has occurred in recent years. In 2002, two major companies, the Swedish furniture firm Ikea and Russian beer producer Baltika, ended operations in Belarus due to unrealized government commitments or unwelcome interference. Ford Motors did the same in 1999. Economic pressures in 2007 may have led to the unexpected and non-transparent sale of a state telecommunications company to an Austrian firm.

Growth continued to be robust in 2007. Consumer price inflation averaged about 8.3% in 2007, but higher energy import prices are expected to drive up inflation for 2008 and subsequent years. Large wage increases, which were typical in the 1990s and early 2000s, fueled some increased consumption but also made Belarusian firms less competitive. Close to 20% of enterprises and a majority of collective farms currently operate at a loss, a percentage that has remained steady since 2002. Beginning in late 2008, Belarus increasingly felt the effects of the global financial crisis, as exports decreased to other severely impacted economies, notably Russia. In light of the crisis, Belarus secured a $2 billion loan from Russia in November 2008 and a $2.5 billion stand-by arrangement from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in January 2009.

Belarus continues to be heavily dependent on Russia, with the potential for greater economic dependency in a long-proposed EU-style union between the two states. Prospects for an eventual union state remain weak, however, largely due to the apparent lack of interest on the part of the leadership of both countries. However, Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan have announced plans to move ahead with the formation of a customs union that they expect to be completed by 2010.

The World Bank announced a new 4-year country assistance strategy for Belarus in December 2007, which focuses on global environment and energy challenges, enhances the competitiveness of the Belarusian economy to assure rising incomes, and protects the welfare of the most vulnerable. As part of the strategy, the World Bank is financing improvements to schools, hospitals, and homes for orphans, the elderly, and the disabled throughout Belarus, with particular emphasis on improving the energy efficiency of those facilities. In 2004, Belarus rejected a World Bank loan to help fight AIDS and tuberculosis. IMF cooperation is currently limited to policy and technical consultations.

GDP (2006 est.): $36.99 billion (2006 IMF estimate). GDP growth rate (2007 est.): 5.5%. Per capita GDP (2006): $3,700. Natural resources: Forest land, peat deposits, potash, small amounts of oil and natural gas. Agriculture: Products--grain, potatoes, vegetables, flax, beef, milk. Industry: Types--machinery and transport equipment, chemical products, fabrics, and consumer goods. Trade (2005): Exports--$16.0 billion (refined petroleum, machinery and transport equipment, chemicals, foodstuffs, metals, and textiles). Major markets--Russia, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Great Britain, Ukraine, and Lithuania. Imports--$16.7 billion (mineral products, machinery and equipment, metals, crude oil and natural gas, chemicals, foodstuffs). Major suppliers--Russia, Germany, Ukraine, Poland, Italy, Lithuania. Exchange rate (April 2007): 2,145 BYR (Belarusian rubles)=U.S. $1.

Belarus has established ministries of energy, forestry, land reclamation, and water resources, as well as state committees to deal with ecology and safety procedures in the nuclear power industry. The most serious environmental issue in Belarus results from the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. About 70% of the nuclear fallout from the plant landed on Belarusian territory and about 20% of the land remains contaminated. Government restrictions on residence and use of contaminated land are not strictly enforced, and the government even announced plans in 2004 to increase agricultural production in the contaminated regions. The government receives U.S. assistance in its efforts to deal with the consequences of the radiation. Belarus also faces growing air, land, and water pollution levels from potash mining in the south of the country.

While archeological evidence points to settlement in today's Belarus at least 10,000 years ago, recorded history begins with settlement by Baltic and Slavic tribes in the early centuries A.D. With distinctive features by the ninth century, the emerging Belarusian state was then absorbed by Kievan Rus' in the ninth century. Belarus was later an integral part of what was called Litva, which included today's Belarus as well as today's Lithuania. Belarus was the birthplace of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Belarusian was the state language of the Grand Duchy until 1697, in part owing to the strong flowering of Belarusian culture during the Renaissance through the works of leading Belarusian humanists such as Frantzisk Skaryna. Belarus was the site of the Union of Brest in 1597, which created the Greek Catholic Church, for long the majority church in Belarus until suppressed by the Russian empire, and the birthplace of Thaddeus Kosciuszko, who played a key role in the American Revolution. Occupied by the Russian empire from the end of the 18th century until 1918, Belarus declared its short-lived National Republic on March 25, 1918, only to be forcibly absorbed by the Bolsheviks into what became the Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.). Suffering devastating population losses under Soviet leader Josif Stalin and the German Nazi occupation, including mass executions of 800,000 Jews, Belarus was retaken by the Soviets in 1944. It declared its sovereignty on July 27, 1990, and independence from the Soviet Union on August 25, 1991. It has been run by authoritarian Alyaksander Lukashenka since 1994.

? Mitt Romney [1]License: This work is in the Public Domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code

Source = [2]

View the original article here

Henrique Capriles

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

(Difference between revisions)::The steepest uptick occurred in the most recent era from 2000-2009, during which incidence rose 3.6 percent per year.::The steepest uptick occurred in the most recent era from 2000-2009, during which incidence rose 3.6 percent per year.::Keeping in mind that the study is about women in the 25-39 age group, the group around 2000 (before the uptick) are not pre-abortion.  Even the oldest (age 39) member of the least cancerous cohort (in 2000) would have been age 12 when  Roe v. Wade was decided in January 1973.  In other words, even the early, healthy, group in the study were of child-bearing age in the abort era.  As much as I'd like for this study to support this case, I don't see how it does. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 15:32, 2 July 2013 (EDT)::Keeping in mind that the study is about women in the 25-39 age group, the group around 2000 (before the uptick) are not pre-abortion.  Even the oldest (age 39) member of the least cancerous cohort (in 2000) would have been age 12 when  Roe v. Wade was decided in January 1973.  In other words, even the early, healthy, group in the study were of child-bearing age in the abort era.  As much as I'd like for this study to support this case, I don't see how it does. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 15:32, 2 July 2013 (EDT)Here is a link to a reputable source that more than confirms the hypothesis.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955/Abortion-triple-risk-breast-cancer.html--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 16:02, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--Andy Schlafly 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)

It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. Conservative 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST) I will combine them. Conservative if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable [1]. Shall I remove this claim?

The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--Andy Schlafly 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST) Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can alwpays re-insert it.--JeremyK 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is Palin still listed as one and Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago?

The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--Andy Schlafly 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST) Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President" Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney

So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --Sid 3050 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)

I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --Sid 3050 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST) Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup" Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement" Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"

Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:

Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round. The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order). This site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country: Spain: 15 - 24% Netherlands: 39 - 44% Germany: 41 - 49% Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44% USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%

What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --Sid 3050 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Obviously nobody said atheism was the only factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport. Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--Andy Schlafly 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST) England's past World Cup ratings: 1950: 8th 1954: 6th 1958: 11th 1962: 8th 1966: 1st 1970: 8th 1974: not qualified 1978: not qualified 1982: 6th 1986: 8th 1990: 4th 1994: not qualified 1998: 9th 2002: 6th 2006: 7th 2010: 13th Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010? Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the trend there isn't exactly indicating growing failure. So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking. And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better? Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --Sid 3050 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

I'm surprised that this is still doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at this discussion and also at this one. --Sid 3050 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does very well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --Sid 3050 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that "As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil." - James 4:16 --PhilipN 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--CPalmer 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST) Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." DouglasA 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST) (edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the King James Version translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--Andy Schlafly 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST) Douglas, I'm open-minded about this, but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--Andy Schlafly 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. Gregkochuconn 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)

I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. Conservative 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT) ? http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --JustinD 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

I have an open mind about whether Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many conservatives who had rallied behind him?--Andy Schlafly 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT) Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. DVMRoberts 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT) Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of Conservapedia proven right?JustinD 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT) Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim Conservapedia proven right about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --BradleyS 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT) Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --JustinD 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT) I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --BradleyS 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT) You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --JustinD 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT) It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters perceived "Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant. What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--Andy Schlafly 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT) Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! Insel 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. " So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? AugustO 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

You seem to be focusing on the hearsay in the article, which of course would be inadmissible in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing. Please see hearsay society for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--Andy Schlafly 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT) I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of deliberate ignorance or closed-mindedness. --AaronT 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT) Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--Andy Schlafly 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT) To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in Counterexamples to an Old Earth are two seperate issues. --AaronT 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT) Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas. But his claim is Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency. That's quite a difference! And calling the claim that mankind is causing this [...] implausible seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! AugustO 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I know from the article about you that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the Counterexample to an Old Earth page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --Randall7 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of Christ rising from the dead does prove several theories in Christianity. With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--Andy Schlafly 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT) Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the Hearsay society, I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --Randall7 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that. Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask Jesus for a reference after telling the parable of the Prodigal Son?--Andy Schlafly 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT) I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --Randall7 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT) No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. Nate 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. Sylvain 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. Nate 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. Sylvain 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT) The Hearsay Society is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies logic and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. Pharisees used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--Andy Schlafly 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. Nate 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. Sylvain 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? Nate 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT) That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. Sylvain 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. Davidspencer 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --FrederickT3 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Jesus told the parable as a true story about the good side of human nature. It was not merely fiction. Notice how no one asked Him to provide a citation that human nature was really like this. Instead, listeners of the Prodigal Son then and now think for themselves, and recognize its truth without resorting to a demand for hearsay.--Andy Schlafly 13:07, 29 April 2012 (EDT) So you feel yourself to be on a level with Jesus? You feel that because he, the infaliable Son of God, was not asked for a citation then you should not be? Less than 300 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for making such a claim. You should really reconsider your hubris, and then ask for forgivness for your pride. And then provide a citation - or withdraw your claim. Davidspencer 13:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT) But ASchlafly, you yourself said that a parable is "a fictional narrative." Is it a true story or fiction? It cannot be both. Sylvain 13:34, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Sylvain, do you think the correct answer to a word problem in math is "merely fiction"? I don't think so. David, I don't think Christians burned anyone at the stake for making observations about premature graying, without citation.--Andy Schlafly 13:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

For those of you who argue that Andy Schlafly is not infalible and needs to supply sources, keep in mind that by your own argument you need to supply sources that Andy is not infalible if you wish to state it. I doubt you can. JacobJ 14:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Edit Conflict: No, but they very well might have burned someone who claimed that his pronouncements were as clear and obvious as those of the Lord. And I'm not sure you can equate word problems with empirical statements about the observable world. I could write a word problem about a train taking 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and for the sake of the word problem, that's fine. It's not the same as saying "a train take 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and only a Pharisee would question my word," which is essentially what you are doing here. Sylvain So is the correct answer to a word problem "merely fiction," or not? And, by the way, Christians did not burn people at the stake as much as public schools might lead people to believe. Opponents of Christianity have been far more violent throughout history.--Andy Schlafly 14:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Let's leave the questions of public schools and burning at the stake aside for the purposes of this discussion. The issue here is whether or not a constructed word problem is the same as an empirical claim about the world. I could construct a word problem where the correct answer is that the train took 20 minutes to get from Baltimore to Chicago. That says nothing about an actual train. You are making a claim about grey hair and when asked for evidence, your position seems to be "Jesus didn't need to provide evidence for his parables, and neither do I for this claim." This implies, to the casual observer, that you think that your claims have the same authority as those of the Lord. Do you not see how the reader might raise his eyebrows at such a position? Sylvain 14:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

OK, suppose it wasn't Jesus who told the Prodigal Son, but someone else. Would anyone ask for references to confirm how the story illustrates a truth about life?--Andy Schlafly 15:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Someone might ask not for references to confirm that the story tells a truth about life, but for references that the events mentioned in the story actually happened. However, whether or not the story happened or not doesn't change the lesson implied in the story. I get that. But you're not simply telling a story to impart a larger lesson. You are making an empirical claim about the world, having to do with the occurrence of gray hairs. The only evidence you seem to give is "Just like Jesus, I don't need any proof." But Jesus wasn't talking about an actual son and an actual father in the parable--he was telling a story. He could have made it all up in order to illustrate the lesson; that doesn't make the lesson any less valid. Story-telling is not making an empirical claim. Surely you can see the difference. Either 1. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and observable reality, or 2. You believe that your word is as unquestionable as that of Jesus Christ Himself. Sylvain 15:52, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture is one thing. A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture who led a project to re-write the Bible because parts of it did not conform to his political ideology is quite another. Then the claims of the man become self-fulfilling. Step 1: "Here is a claim about the world." Step 2: "For verification of this claim, please consult the version of the Bible that I wrote that reinforces the vision of the world that I am claiming in Step 1." Step 3: "If you have a problem with that, remember that Jesus--at least the version of him that I describe in my Bible--said things without reference to anything, and I can too. Because, like the claims of Jesus (the one in the Bible I rewrote), my claims are obvious." Does that not strike you as problematic? Sylvain 16:01, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

The Conservative Bible Project has always been dedicated to translating the original meaning of the Bible more precisely, free of liberal bias that creeps into other translations.--Andy Schlafly 23:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Which explains why so many noted conservative theologians have given the rewritten Bible that you produced high praises, and why so many conservative churches and denominations are using it instead of those other, more liberal versions, I guess. Sylvain 00:07, 30 April 2012 (EDT) I think the first statement would amount to more reliance on hearsay concerning what "conservative" theologians supposedly said. And, by the way, the Conservative Bible Project was never a "rewritten Bible."--Andy Schlafly 00:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT) This page is proudly free from citations

To insist on finding a reference elsewhere for every statement made, as Wikipedia does, is to be a slave to hearsay. The authors of this page have enough confidence in their own insight not to lean on the opinions and assertions of others.

What is this?

15:50, 29 April 2012 (EDT) It's a template that can be used to answer or pre-empt calls for references on pages where they aren't needed. There's also {{nohearsaysection}} for use on specific sections of pages.--CPalmer 09:21, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that there is a scientist, a well-respected man and a well-known conservative (so no liberal bias involved), who has spent his career investigating premature greying in society, collecting data on the current incidence of premature greying and studying historic records on premature greying. Let us further assume - purely hypothetically - that this man has found that premature greying has not increased since, say, the time of Jesus up to now. If we don't know this man personally, should we take his results seriously or should we dismiss them and all reference to them as hearsay? What if we know him personally, maybe even as a close friend, and know him to be an honest, conservative man? Should we trust him and take his results seriously, even if they contradict what we believe to be true? At what point does information obtained from someone else stop being hearsay? You will surely say that he will not find contradicting results, but my question is not about premature greying (incidentally, I'm in my mid-40s and have been completely grey for at least ten years now). What I really want to understand is the concept of hearsay, its limits and the connection to openmindedness. --FrederickT3 11:36, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I meant what's the point of this. References aren't bad, they prevent people from inventing their own facts.brenden 00:21, 1 May 2012 (EDT) When a demand for references is used to shout down logic or obvious truths available to everyone, then that is bad. When references are used to repeat hearsay contained in the references, then that is also bad. Silly demands for references or authority were used to interfere with the logic and obvious truths in the Gospels, which of course contain no references.--Andy Schlafly 00:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

'::good point. However, when used correctly, references help people navigate the facts and content

I agree, but too often people demand references as a way of sidestepping clear logic or obvious truths, while accepting worthless references in other situations if the references reinforce their views.--Andy Schlafly 01:04, 1 May 2012 (EDT) So, I understand that it some situations, references just aren't readily available. Maybe because an insight is either so obvious that no one's bothered to discuss it or so novel that no one's thought to discuss it. But in other situations, they are available. Lots of smart people have studied lots of obscure things. In situations where references are available, is it appropriate to use them? If I, for example, found a study investigating the age at which people go grey, would that be worth considering? --JustinD 03:07, 1 May 2012 (EDT) Yes, of course references are sometimes - often - wholly appropriate and very useful. They are used extensively on Conservapedia. But Wikipedia has gone beyond that and suffers from a kind of reference-mania - dismissing any statement that has no reference, and conversely often allowing any old garbage on the grounds that it does have a (questionable) citation. See the comics here and here for two humorous commentaries on the problems caused by Wikipedia's policies (though note that other comics on that site may not be so educational - in fact the second link should come with a mild warning).--CPalmer 04:18, 1 May 2012 (EDT) I understand, I think, your criticism of how references are used elsewhere. I'm more interested in trying to understand how you/Andy/Conservapedia want them to be used here. How do I know when it is appropriate to ask for a reference? If I ask for one and am told it is not necessary, by what criteria will we (or even better, objective others) determine who is correct? If I have a reference on some topic, how will I know whether or not it is appropriate to include in an article? --JustinD 17:31, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

I recently stumbled upon this article after a link to it was featured on the main page. After reviewing the article and it's subsequent talk page discussion, I believe I have found a few areas that could stand some attention.

Ambiguousness of predictions - Many of the predictions are vague and offer little in the way of an objectively measurable outcome. To be effective, predictions should be as specific as possible, with indisputable results. Links to predictions - Very few of the list items reference the article (and exact edit) on Conservapedia where the actual prediction was made. Critics of the project could easily claim that predictions were being made after-the-fact once the final outcome was known. Citing the specific edit where the prediction was made would preemptively silence such criticism. "Liberal claptrap" responses - Like the predictions themselves, only a minuscule amount of the alleged liberal uproar is actually documented. The results - Surprisingly many of the results do not link to any external source, where the reader can review the material and reach their own conclusion about the accuracy of the prediction.

--DonnyC 15:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)

You're welcome to add more references, but the predictions and outcomes are so clear and well-known that even more references are hardly necessary.--Andy Schlafly 14:10, 15 January 2013 (EST)

Lance Armstrong was stripped from his titles in August 2012, so adding him in September 2012 to the list of overrated sport-starts doesn't take a visionary... --AugustO 11:46, 15 January 2013 (EST)

May seem obvious now, but as you can see from the reference there was objection in September 2012 to including him in the Overrated Sports Stars entry.--Andy Schlafly 12:02, 15 January 2013 (EST) I remember this well, as I reinserted the entry. So there were two editors (User:Wonders and User:AugustO) who thought that he was overrated, and other Conservapedians disagreed: you have enough convenient predictions to cover any outcome.... --AugustO 13:58, 15 January 2013 (EST) No, because the deniers were not "Conservapedians" in many meaningful sense. Conservapedians said he was overrated, and non-Conservapedians disagreed.--Andy Schlafly 14:08, 15 January 2013 (EST) the article on Lance Armstrong was created in Sep 2007. The first reference to drug abuse was inserted in Jan 2012 In Sep 2007 wikipedia's article on Armstrong already had a long section named Allegations of drug use

So even if you claim that Conservapedia was proven right, it came quite late to the party... --AugustO 14:34, 15 January 2013 (EST)

"Predicting" that Armstrong is overrated in September is a bit like "predicting" that Obama would win the election ... on the 7th of November. --DamianJohn 15:12, 15 January 2013 (EST) Liberal denial about Armstrong continued well past September. There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.--Andy Schlafly 17:47, 15 January 2013 (EST) Liberal denial about Armstrong continued well past September. Evidence? There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great. Link? There are those thinks called facts... --AugustO 17:57, 15 January 2013 (EST) Liberal companies including a beer company and Nike continued to endorse Armstrong for months after September. Now, do you need a citation for that too???--Andy Schlafly 18:59, 15 January 2013 (EST) Just citations which show that Anheuser Bush and Nike are liberal companies... --AugustO 19:20, 15 January 2013 (EST) Oh please ... is it really necessary to provide a citation that Nike and a beer company are liberal???--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 15 January 2013 (EST) Yes. In my country, beer companies belong to the most conservative companies imaginable. And Anheuser Bush doesn't strike me as a kind of micro-brewery. --AugustO 19:32, 15 January 2013 (EST) Both Nike and Budd dropped him, presumably after looking in detail at their legal options. Besides I cannot imagine how you would even begin to argue that Nike is a "liberal" company - they are one of the biggest exploiters of cheap labour in the world; they are famous for having extremely lax safety standards for employees, and being in favour of countries that reduce them as much as possible. I'm not familiar with the beer company, but given their size I doubt they would meet any sensible definition of liberal. As for "I'm sure there are atheist websites who endorse him still"; that is a meaningless statement unless you actually cite one. --DamianJohn 21:07, 15 January 2013 (EST) It's difficult for me to imagine any corporation as "liberal." When the primary motivator is profit, groups and individuals tend to go conservative. --CamilleT 00:41, 16 January 2013 (EST) Big corporations have never been friendly to the conservative movement. Except for the union issue, big corporations tend to support liberals.--Andy Schlafly 00:54, 16 January 2013 (EST) I think the opposite is the case (take, for example, the membership of ALEC). GregG 01:14, 16 January 2013 (EST) (EC)And tax policy, and health and safety, and welfare, and discrimination laws, and minimum wages, and healthcare, and political finance reform and etc etc ad nauseum. --DamianJohn 01:18, 16 January 2013 (EST)

Rupert Murdock a liberal? AlanE 00:58, 16 January 2013 (EST)

Rupert Murdoch is whatever will further his business interests. He has at various times supported both sides of politics when doing so helps his various business interests. Dvergne 01:13, 16 January 2013 (EST) The Australian, "The Times of London", "The Wall Street Journal", those rubbish tabloids in Britain. New York and in the various state capitals in Australia - "liberal" papers, Dvergne? AlanE 01:38, 16 January 2013 (EST)

This is like shooting fish in a barrel guys - just follow the money. In 2012, Anheuser Busch donated 55% of its PAC money to Republicans, 45% to Democrats. Since 2003, it has donated 45% of its money to Republicans, and 38% to Democrats. In 2012, Nike donated 63% to Republicans, 37% to Democrats. Since 2004, Nike has given 43% to Republicans, 40% to Democrats. Although neither are 'overwhelmingly GOP', like, for example, Koch Industries (98% Republican, 2% Democrat), if the Nike and Anheuser Busch numbers were election results, they would be called a "landslide" for Republicans. The vast majority of corporations will be found to be like this - it's in their interest to support less regulation, lower business taxes, etc, and they almost all line up to support conservatives. Wonders 12:27, 18 January 2013 (EST)

The donations by corporations to Republicans are typically to liberal Republicans, some of whom are more liberal than many Democrats.--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 18 January 2013 (EST) But Anheuser-Busch is a member of ALEC, at least according to this source. I don't think they would belong to ALEC if they were liberal. GregG 20:13, 18 January 2013 (EST) Not to mention that Anheuser-Busch donated to Andy's favorite candidate Todd Akin. --DonnyC 20:32, 18 January 2013 (EST)

I read the National Geographic article, and it appears that the argument is whether the relay mechanically failed or whether it was improperly set. Nothing suggests that relay or its use was not at fault, and certainly nothing suggests that energy rationing of any sort contributed to the outage. Please fix this. Thanks, GregG 21:25, 9 February 2013 (EST)

A low setting on a relay (or fuse) would result from guidelines based on rationing energy.--Andy Schlafly 22:05, 9 February 2013 (EST) Relays almost never fail, and stadiums almost never go dark. You can't prove that a relay didn't cause a blackout by saying that relays almost never fail, just as liberals can't prove that God didn't create the world because worlds almost never are created. --Praymond 11:30, 27 May 2013 (EDT) There are several other, more plausible reasons. It could have been to prevent larger-scale blackouts due to interruption in the power coming into the stadium. It could have been to reduce the risk of fire (the same kind of reason why circuit breakers in your home trip). Or, the setting may have been too low simply due to human error. The details should be sorted out soon through investigation. GregG 22:31, 9 February 2013 (EST)

A simple google search shows that the term "media bullying" was already in use before Conservapedia purportedly coined it. Onestone 09:48, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

Were prior uses elsewhere of the term "media bullying" in the same rich meaning as the usage here?--Andy Schlafly 10:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT) You claim (and literally wrote) that Conservapedia coined the term. However, judging from your reply, what you probably intended to write was that Conservapedia merely coined the highly particular usage of the term. That is an essential difference. Onestone 09:13, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

The article cited as proof that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer mentions nothing about abortions, nothing about Roe V Wade being connected with the increase of cancer in young women. Quote: "Why more young women would be presenting with tumors that have already spread to bone, brain, lungs, or other distant sites isn't clear, they noted. Rising obesity rates, changes in alcohol and tobacco use, and genetics are possible causes, according to Dr. Thomas Julian, director of surgical oncology at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh."

If you want to find a connection, or have some proof, I recommend adding it, but this is not that proof. Doesn't even come close. It just so happens that the studies started a few years after Roe V Wade was decided. There is not even a casual connection between the two mentioned in this article. Vyselink 15:03, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Newspaper articles often do have the problem of liberal denial, but are cited here for the facts they contain.--Andy Schlafly 20:09, 12 May 2013 (EDT) The article's fact's also don't support the conclusion I'm afraid, which ultimately doesn't make a good case for this thesis. It states: The steepest uptick occurred in the most recent era from 2000-2009, during which incidence rose 3.6 percent per year. Keeping in mind that the study is about women in the 25-39 age group, the group around 2000 (before the uptick) are not pre-abortion. Even the oldest (age 39) member of the least cancerous cohort (in 2000) would have been age 12 when Roe v. Wade was decided in January 1973. In other words, even the early, healthy, group in the study were of child-bearing age in the abort era. As much as I'd like for this study to support this case, I don't see how it does. MelH 15:32, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Here is a link to a reputable source that more than confirms the hypothesis.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955/Abortion-triple-risk-breast-cancer.html --Tomqua 16:02, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Does anyone else feel like this might be jumping the gun a little?? "Tamerlan Tsarnaev probably murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA likely proves it." The words "probably" and "likely" are not synonyms for "proven right"... especially not when the only citation provided is a link back to the same statement (without any external source at the time of this posting) on the main page of this very website. I honestly haven't followed the murder case at all and have no idea what is going on with it, but the information provided here is far from convincing to me. Fnarrow 00:24, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

I stand corrected, there is now a source provided on the main page... however, it very clearly states that the evidence only points to them being in the area on the day of the murder and circumstantial at best. Like I said above, I haven't been following the case so I don't know all the details, I just feel it's a little premature to claim CP was proven right on this. Fnarrow 00:33, 12 May 2013 (EDT) I don't see any "liberal bias" or right-vs-left in any of this. All Americans believe that the Boston Marathon bombing, carjacking, police shootouts etc. were horrible behavior. It is an opportunity for the nation to pull together to respond to this. We all want the police and the criminal justice system to work effectively to identify all related crimes and any possible co-conspirators. America demands a complete and professional investigation. Thanks, Wschact 01:13, 12 May 2013 (EDT) Within days the DNA evidence from the 9/11 triple-murder was compared with the DNA of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and they likely matched. (If they didn't match, then authorities would surely say so.) Yet liberal denial about the DNA match continues.--Andy Schlafly 19:57, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

It seems my recent edit to this page was more controversial than I intended. I wanted to apologize to the project for the problems that I caused--it was never my intent to remove substantive material. I believe the lay out of the chart can be enhanced, and the following is my proposed methodology. I will not endeavor to make these changes without approval. Each of these phases would be enacted in separate edits with significant time in between them to facilitate review.
-First: Standardization of the dates. Currently, there is no standard. Some dates are seasons while others are ranges, and those with specific dates are displayed with no specific style. My proposed standardization is as follows--for dates: (Full Month) (Day) (Year). for those that are currently seasons or ranges, I will search for the first relevant edit and use that as the date. I will provide a citation.
-Second: Citation of Claims. After completing phase one, my intent is to revisit the table and provide internal citations to all predication made.
-Third: Citation of Results. After completing phase two, my intent is to revisit the table and provide citations to all results.
-Fourth: Sortability of Table. After completing phase three, my intent is to edit the formatting to create a sort-able table.

I believe these enhancements will improve the visual appeal of the table. Further, I believe these enhancements embody an important principle: credit where credit is due. Conservapedia has often made bold predictions and has been proven right time and time again. Although it is improper to brag, we ought to take pride in, and document, the project's success.

Again, my apologies for any complications my previous edits caused. WilliamWB 11:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

I'm fine with the addition of citations, and with standardizing the form for dates is good too. I don't see how sortability will be a problem. The reason I reverted prior edits to this entry was that content changed. For example, and I don't know if this was your edit, but a correct statement about Manning throwing interceptions in the final key game was changed to incorrectly state that Tebow had done so.--Andy Schlafly 16:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT) As I work through adding dates and internal citations, I have noticed that the archive page of In The News ends in December 2011. Were the months January-December 2012 archived? I ask because searching the archives is simpler than my current method of searching through revision histories. Thanks, WilliamWB 09:06, 27 May 2013 (EDT) I think 2012 is archived here: [1].--Andy Schlafly 09:23, 27 May 2013 (EDT) Ah, great! I was looking at the general archives page here: [2] Thanks, WilliamWB 11:55, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

I suggest deleting the point about the speed of light being variable. The article sited does not in fact say this. It states that the speed of light is constant but that space is not the complete vacuum previously thought. Thus the speed of light is slightly slower traveling through space as it is in any non vacuum. CenterK 01:53, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here

Template:Mainpageright

ObamaCare fails again: Obama delays implementation for many businesses. [1]

Edward J. Snowden denounces Obama: "the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions. This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile.” [2]

Will the Tea Party take on another mission: preparation for social collapse? [3]

Darwinism and atheism are at their weakest point in the 21st century. The time is ripe to spread anti-evolution material via a grassroots campaign with the greatest possible intensity.[4]

"Putin: Snowden can stay in Russia if he stops damaging USA." [5] Snowden has just sought asylum in Russia.

Belgium university study indicates that conservative senior citizen voters have higher confidence levels than liberals.[6]

Atheist wiki editor admits that the evolutionary paradigm is disputable. Other atheist wiki editors don't challenge his assertion. Also, atheist editor imagines that Darwinism might be evidentially solid 200 years from now. [7]

A new astronomical fix for the Great Flood. [8]

America's allies are furious that Obama was snooping and spying on them, and Obama fails to explain why he did this to our friends. [9] Instead, Obama has Joe Biden focus on preventing Obama's young nemesis from traveling to Ecuador.

America's first monument to atheism is unsightly and appears to be crooked. [10] Once again, the notion that atheists are more intelligent is dispelled and the notion that atheists are crooked is reinforced. See: Atheism and intelligence and Atheism and morality

Joe Biden personally begs Ecuador not to grant asylum to Edward J. Snowden, but Ecuador is unimpressed. [11]

The Discovery Institute charges evolutionist Nick Matzke with a suspiciously fast and sloppy review of Stephen C. Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design.[12]

Setback for creation-deniers: Jane Austen is favored to replace Charles Darwin on Brits' £10 note! [13]

Jane Austen was a creationist and her father served as an Anglican rector.

The economies of the U.S., Germany and France have all recovered the output lost since the 2008 economic crisis. But Britain so far hasn't bounced back.[14]

Liberal double standard: liberal media are fine with the use of rubber bullets and even a stun grenade against people who were protesting Obama. [15] Imagine the outrage if a conservative government did that.

A Tea Party Democrat warns: don't let the IRS scandal die. [16]

Another win: Court of Appeals rules for Hobby Lobby in its challenge to an ObamaCare regulation. [17]

Christians are happier than atheists on Twitter.[18]

Despite a brutal homicide, NFL owners refuse to clean up the league: the underachieving Dallas Cowboys keep a jailed player on its team who has been charged with intoxication manslaughter and failing two drug tests. [19]

Don't let talking heads entertain you out of your freedoms. [20]

Nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on homosexual "marriage" affects Christian freedoms regarding the ability to follow Scripture or clearly teach the biblical view of marriage.[21]

Theologically conservative clergy can still preach that individuals who die homosexuals will burn in hell for all eternity.

The battle of the black robes will begin: judiciary against clergy. Where do you stand? [22]

The Hollywood left: so anti-gun in public, until the director yells "ACTION!" [23]

Star player in the anti-Christian NFL is now suspected of having murdered two others a month before he received a $40 million contract extension. [24]

The Supreme Court grants cert to reconsider a pro-abortion ruling by a state court, which is the first time in more than six years that the High Court takes an abortion case. The lamestream media, obsessed with the gay marriage issue, hasn't even noticed this cert grant yet.

That Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is only one symptom of a culture run amuck. See here for a full list. [25]

NFL values: a Pro-Bowl "star" with a $41 million contract is arrested for allegedly orchestrating a murder that included shooting the victim five times at point-blank range, while accompanied by friends. [26] Perhaps the NFL should welcome Christianity rather than shunning it.

More than 2/3rds of the United States continues to reject same-sex marriage, and judicial supremacy by the Supreme Court today does not change that one bit.

Supreme Court decision on gay marriage blasted by National Organization for Marriage leader. [27] And by Bradlee Dean: [28]

The immigration bill is a big pork fest, and now is an embarrassment to its chief sponsors on that account. [29] And: a Tea Party activist has a few choice words for New Jersey's appointed Senator, and the Republican Party in general. [30]

The liberal media admit: "President Obama in the doldrums." [31] If he cannot even control his own NSA, then why would anyone believe he can control the climate?

Bradlee Dean warns again: as ye sow, so shall ye reap. And that includes what your government sows for you. [32]

Obama is more like a dictator than Vladimir Putin, as Putin observes: "Assange and Snowden consider themselves human rights activists and say they are fighting for the spread of information. Ask yourself this: should you hand these people over so they will be put in prison?" [33]

Russia to Obama and John Kerry: stop lying about Russia's role concerning Edward J. Snowden. Vladimir Putin said Russia wouldn't extradite him anyway. [34]

A former Senate candidate offers his alternative immigration reform plan. [35]

Reddit is seeing its web traffic plunge in 2013. The year 2013 is the WORST year in the history of atheism/Darwinism just like Question evolution! campaign fans predicted![36]

Salon publishes an article which declares: Christopher "Hitchens’ “God Is Not Great” is an intellectually shameful book". Why are atheists so low-class and so low brow?[37]

Liberal John Kerry says that Russia should hand over Obama's nemesis to the Obama Administration. [38] And he's only one example of liberal hypocrites who now talk about "rule of law" after standing for its opposite – during a previous administration. [39]

A grassroots activist asks sobering questions about Edward J. Snowden and his motives, in light of unproven allegations about acts beyond revealing to the public that the American government spies on its own citizens. [40]

Switzerland, a beacon of European creationism, has the world's most competitive economy. The United States, a land filled with creationists, is expected to dominate the world economy for years. [41]

Christianity has great depth and sophistication. Also, 7 reasons why atheism has developed a reputation of being low-class and "low brow". [42]

Reuters: "For Obama, a world of Snowden troubles ... Leaders Obama has wooed - and met recently - were willing to snub the American president."[43]

Pew Research Center: 'Incompetent' and 'liar' are now among the top 5 most frequently used words to describe President Barack Hussein Obama. [44]

Edward J. Snowden apparently lost confidence in the Rule of Law of the amoral communist China and Hong Kong, packed his bags and headed for the increasingly Christian and conservative Russia.

The South China Morning Post reported this morning that Snowden may be en route to Iceland or Ecuador while others have said he is bound for Venezuela via Havana, Cuba. [45]

Mashable admits one of the internet's largest atheist communities, Reddit atheism, has developed a reputation of being "low brow" over the years by "some" (translation: by people who are not "low brow").[46]

Bold evangelism is seeing results in India. 75 - 100 people became Christians in an Indian village. Reports of the miraculous occurring.[47]

Atheist wiki drops in global market share while Gotquestions.org saw an increase in global market share.[48]

Liberal claptrap of the week: "Hillary Clinton wants a female president ‘in my lifetime.’" [49] Translation: Hillary lacks any good reasons for seeking the presidency.

A candidate in a special Senate election may not showcase her own good works in her campaign. Why not? Blame the IRS – and the late Lyndon Baines Johnson. [50]

Mimolette Cheese, a French cheese eaten safely for hundreds of years, is suddenly deemed unsafe by the nannycrats of the Barack Hussein Obama Administration.[51]

Bradlee Dean, speaking out about an attack on one of his teams, calls on America to stop asking permission to obey God. [52]

Hillary Clinton’s daughter Chelsea revealed that her much-admired maternal grandmother was the child of unwed teenage parents who “did not have access to services that are so crucial that Planned Parenthood helps provide.” So Mrs. Clinton would never have been born if abortion had been available. [53]

Liberal double standard: an offensive racial joke by an Obama Cabinet official is somehow not racism, [54] yet the liberal media crucified golfer Sergio Garcia for making an offhand joke about Tiger Woods.

"My Deerest; another tale of evolution" [55]

Hate speech is always defended when a liberal does it. [56]

A New Jersey activist reaches a stunning conclusion: the PRISM system has always been Barack Hussein Obama's ace, and we must shut it down. [57]

Announcing a new grassroots organization evoking the life of Judge Deborah: Women of Faith in Action. [58]

NY Times fact-checkers are unfamiliar with the Bible, and had to issue this correction to a David Brooks column: An earlier version of this column incorrectly identified the biblical texts in which three figures — Saul, David and Esther — appear. Their stories are told in other books of the Jewish Bible, but not in the Torah. The column also incorrectly described a passage from I Corinthians that ends with the statement, “God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” It was written by Paul, not spoken by Jesus. [59]

Retired investigators of TWA Flight 800, downed a few months before Bill Clinton's reelection in 1996, say that the government "falsified" the findings. [60] Recall that the Clinton Administration imprisoned one reporter for trying to determine the truth.

Bradlee Dean warns Barack Hussein Obama of a Biblical truism: you reap what you sow. [61]

A congressional human rights committee in Brazil approves legislation to authorize psychologists to treat and cure homosexuality. [62] The homosexual agenda continues its decline globally.

Conservative "Rand Paul: Youth with me on NSA issue." [63] "They see [Obama] now as a hypocrite," the likely 2016 presidential candidate observes.

An ugly chapter in the Republican primary for the special Senate election in New Jersey came to a close today. An Administrative Law Judge ruled that Alieta Eck, a newcomer who dared challenge the political establishment, can stay on the ballot. [64]

"Remembering Jesus, really remembering!" by Bishop Bert: [65]

Chinese dissident claims communist China now controls U.S. academia: [66]

State Senator Elbert Guillory of Louisiana becomes another ex-Democrat after seeing that party for what it really is. [67][68] “At the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans. But the left is only concerned with one thing: control. And they disguise this control as charity.”

AT&T iPhone Users Forced to Receive Obama Alerts Which Can't Be Turned Off. [69] First the Verizon phone calls scandal and now this.[70]

Russia, fed up with Obama's pushing of the homosexual agenda on its own country, tells Obama to quit trying to overthrow the leadership in Syria. [71]

Edward J. Snowden continues to stand up against Obama by declaring today on a live newspaper blog, "Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped." [72] Why are liberals like Obama so opposed to the public learning the truth?

Jane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons discusses the Internal Revenue Service administering ObamaCare. [73]

Is the reason why atheists are more likely to commit suicide that so many of them have bad relationships with their earthly father and their heavenly father?[74] See: Paul Vitz and Atheism and suicide

If Barack Hussein Obama likes Father's Day so much, then why is the Obama Administration striving so hard to have lesbians get "married".[75]

"Britain's biggest climate problem is with cold winters that lead to thousands of excess deaths." [76] Yet liberal denial continues about the hoax of a global warming crisis.

The world's biggest population of atheists run by secular leftists may implode under crushing debt in about 6 months. Hard landing may be in store for China's economy. [77][78]

Expect the explosive growth of Christianity in China to continue. Biblical Christianity thrives under economic adversity.[79]

‘Natural’ or ‘unnatural’ human behaviour? Many evolutionists consider much of today’s human behaviour ‘unnatural’ — except when it comes to homosexual ‘marriage’.[80]

Now the Obama Administration pretends they do not know where Edward J. Snowden is, perhaps to avoid criticism if Obama tried to extradite him now. [81]

Today, a Question evolution! campaign blog went over 450,000 page views. Also, 20-30 young people will be reading the newest draft of the Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students.[82]

Dr. Joseph James Kennedy: Deceit: the Modus Operandi of Evolution.[83]

Vetoed! Conservative Texas Governor Rick Perry vetoes more than two dozen bills passed by RINOs. [84] Will Perry run for the presidency next?

The President of Equatorial Guinea has warned African leaders not to tolerate, accept or allow the issue of homosexuality to get roots in their countries. Also, 7 reasons why homosexuals have lower moral standards.[85]

News from the Left Coast: "'Less liberal' is the new conservative," as Dems find it necessary to restrain reckless spending by other Dems. [86]

In New Jersey, candidate Steve Lonegan wages an ugly fight before an Administrative Law Judge against a prospective primary opponent. [87][88] A grassroots activist today begs him to knock it off. [89]

Happy Flag Day: "A yearly contemplation of our flag strengthens and purifies the national conscience." — President Calvin Coolidge

God gives victory when His people fight, especially in His Name. [90]

Liberal policies have destroyed Detroit, and now the city defaults on its debt. [91] It may pay only pennies on the dollar to its creditors.

New Jersey grassroots activists have reason to cheer: two genuine conservatives in a Republican special primary for the United States Senate. [92]

Russians overwhelmingly reject liberal values on homosexuality. Lawmakers pass anti-homosexuality bill in a 435-0 vote. Weak gay activists are easily overpowered by police.[93]

Liberal denial continues: Joe Biden denies that George W. Bush defeated Al Gore for president in 2000, and the liberal media praises Biden for his denial! [94]

Southern Baptist Convention blasts Boy Scouts over stance on homosexuality, votes to encourage defectors. [95]

America's first atheist monument to stand outside Florida courthouse.[96]

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) deputy director Michael Morell has "decided to spend more time with his family" and resign post terror attack in Benghazi.[97]

Why moderates leave an acrid taste in a conservative's mouth. [98]

The modern civil rights movement consists of "demoralizers of the faith" – a far cry from Martin Luther King's day. [99]

The Mainstream Media always ignore this key fact about any mass murder story they cover: it happens in a gun-free zone. [100]

Pope Francis plans to purge the Vatican of the "gay lobby," and speaks candidly about the problem. [101] Why aren't Republican Party leaders as candid?

James Clapper, head of the NSA and now under-fire, said in March that he had no knowledge of the massive phone and email collecting by his agency. [102]

The socialist "paradise" of Venezuela is now on the brink of hyperinflation. [103]

Love Obamacare now? If you live in Ohio, your health insurance premiums went up 88% percent. [104]

NSA officials overheard on how to cause Edward Snowden to be "disappeared". [105]

From the IRS "Keep your religious beliefs to yourself." [106] "You cannot, you know, use your religious belief to tell other people you don’t have a belief, so I don’t believe you need the right to do this, start confrontation, protesting, uh, prot, uh, protest...you don’t apply for tax exemption."

The bright Patriots head coach treats the liberal media with disdain in dismissing their inane hostility to Tim Tebow, on his first day of practice. [107]

Is Edward J. Snowden, who revealed the breathtaking extent of how our government monitors us, a hero, or a traitor? Judge for yourself. [108]

The world's biggest mental health research institute is abandoning the new version of psychiatry's "Bible" (DSM-5).[109]

Great Conservative Sports Star Tim Tebow is reportedly joining the New England Patriots, from where he will be able to crush twice-a-year the liberal New York team that cut him. [110] God does indeed have a sense of humor.

Why is big government a Goliath and why should you fear it? Start with watching a girl with cystic fibrosis nearly die from some arcane rule, while the government waives said rule for a big campaign donor. Then remember a little bit of history. [111]

Homeschooling surge underway: Education at home is growing seven times faster than K-12 enrollment. The homeschool option makes perfect sense, "significantly higher ACT-Composite scores as high schoolers and higher grade point averages as college students." [112]

Michael Reagan: Reform the U.S. tax code. [113]

The joke sport of "rhythmic gymnastics" is part of the 2020 Olympic Games roster.[114]

Britain has a debt-to-revenue ratio of 212%. Britain's external debt to GDP ratio was 390% in 2011.[115]

Multi-ethnic, Bible-believing church is adding 40-50 new members a year via the internet. Also, will a "God-ordained meeting" prove to yield more fruit than boring atheist meetings led by boring, white, atheist males? [116]

Conservative Rand Paul may challenge the privacy-invading conduct of the Obama Administration in court. [117] Even a few Dems express their opposition to the Big Brother program.

Promoters of marijuana are quiet about the arrest Saturday of a crane operator charged with causing the deaths of 6 people while under the alleged influence of the drug. [118] Authorities still conceal how much pot was in the system of "College Weed Dealer" Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. [119]

Previous Conservapedia Breaking News

View the original article here

User:Gonggun91

View the original article here

User talk:Ed Poor

(Difference between revisions):yes and please uploud a picture of [[Nicolas Maduro]]. Like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Canciller_de_Venezuela_y_Ofrenda_Floral_a_Bol%C3%ADvar_%284%29.jpg this] here--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:25, 24 June 2013 (EDT):yes and please uploud a picture of [[Nicolas Maduro]]. Like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Canciller_de_Venezuela_y_Ofrenda_Floral_a_Bol%C3%ADvar_%284%29.jpg this] here--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:25, 24 June 2013 (EDT):When will you uploud them?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 08:55, 3 July 2013 (EDT)

Archive: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Hello Mr. Poor, I would like to submit a writing plan. While I haven't been asked for one, I feel this would best help keep me on task and contribute the most productively. You seem to know an awful lot about this wiki stuff, and I'm still new at it, so if you could help me that would be great. I think I'd first like to help contribute to the various book articles around the site by adding in examples of the influence of Christianity, as a lot of books have Christian overtones that aren't currently listed. I'm thinking I'd like to start by drawing parallels between the story of Jesus in the Gospels with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Please let me know if this would be acceptable.--JeremiahJ 18:10, 6 January 2011 (EST)

Probably not. Please email me a draft. --Ed Poor Talk 20:02, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Hello Mr. Poor, I have submitted a request here but it was never attended to. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:19, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Hello Ed Poor, I hope this message finds you doing well. I was wondering if you could upload this image for use in the article I recently created. I look forward to hearing your response. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:32, 7 March 2011 (EST)

Hello Ed Poor, could you please add Atheism and the suppression of science to this template? I really appreciate it! With regards, AnupamTalk 11:14, 7 March 2011 (EST) Hello Ed Poor, I need two more images for the article I created which are available here and here. Recently, User:JMR10 uploaded my previous one, for which I am thankful. Could you ask him to do the same for these two or could you please do these for me? I highly appreciate it. Thanks, AnupamTalk 19:40, 7 March 2011 (EST)

My proxy keeps dropping stuff, so the picture at the top is busted. Also, I had to cut down the reference, because the captcha can't make it through. It should have a left bracket, and h,t,t,p, etc., and a right bracket after the "pdf". I wonder if you could please fix it for me. I will contact Andy about getting my IP range restored.

What I was going to put in the talk page (and will do once things get straightened out) is that the two cited articles are very shallow, having only 7 and 3 sentences, respectively. They both refer to a "plan", but that's because the word "program" hadn't been coined in the computer context. She really was the first person to write "code".

I'm sorry about this. SamHB 00:08, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

I read her notes, and it doesn't look like a computer program to me. A charitable view might be that it's a spec, but there's no flowchart and no source code. Don't be sorry, just get it right. --Ed Poor Talk 18:21, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

What did you expect this "source code" to look like? The term "source code" implies both a programming language and "machine code" that the source code is assembled or compiled into. Assemblers, compilers, and programming languages wouldn't be invented for another hundred years (by Grace Murray Hopper, John Backus, and others.) The same goes for the other accoutrements of modern software development, like flow charts and specifications. In fact, even the terms "software" and "program" hadn't been invented.

Furthermore, assuming that you accept that she had to write "machine code", what would you expect machine code to look like for a machine that reads its instructions with rods poking through holes in large punched cards running around on a track, and does its arithmetic by counting teeth on turning gears? It wouldn't look much like Intel 586 code.

The fact is, the lines of Ada's written algorithm were intended to be punched into lines of holes in Babbage's cards, once the "analytical engine" was built, which it wasn't.

By the way, what I was being "sorry" for was not the content of my edit, but the fact that an extremely buggy proxy messed up the article and wouldn't let me fix it, despite several tries. Andy has been working with me to fix the network problems, and DMorris fixed the broken picture and hyperlink while my access was broken. SamHB 20:39, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

Then it would be more accurate to say that she described an algorithm. That's not the same as a computer program, even if she was hoping that Babbage's machine might be programmed to carry out the algorithm. An encyclopedia should be precise and unbiased, not used to create "factoids" for use in publicity campaigns, such as promoting women in science. I don't say she had to write machine code, but rather to be the "first programmer" she would have had to produce a computer program. If you have seen it, please show it to me. Otherwise, I'm going to make an editorial decision that she produced an algorithm rather than a program. --Ed Poor Talk 12:18, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

I love how libs reveal their true selves. No matter what we say or do in describing them, they come here just to confirm it all. So when they want to emphasize "Jew" in "karajou", I'll be more then happy to get a gold Magen David to wear around my neck, join my brothers and sisters in the synagogue every week, and show everyone else just how hate-filled and intolerant these liberals really are. Karajou 14:20, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

Hi! I tried to add the information for Edo to the Tokyo article and for some reason,. it stripped a bunch of stuff out when I saved. Now when I try and revert the edit I made, I keep getting a internal server 500 error. Please can you revert for me? TracyS 10:19, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

It's ok, I fixed it! TracyS 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT) I'm glad it worked out for you. My Japanese name is "Edo". --Ed Poor Talk 11:04, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

You beat me to every one! Nicely done--IDuan 20:05, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

Thanks. I'll pass that on to my secret bot. --Ed Poor Talk 20:10, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

I must be doing something right. Every time I mention alternate viewpoints, and no one sees fit to revert my edits, I get vandalism to my talk page. --Ed Poor Talk 12:48, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm trying to reorganize the information, not leave it out. If you notice, I'm working on the article quite a bit. May I please revert your revision? SharonW 15:05, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

Sure. I'm frequently too bold and hasty. And that's the wonderful thing about a wiki. Nothing is ever really deleted; it's all in the article history. Go for it! --Ed Poor Talk 15:09, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm lobbying for a separate namespace for the Conservapedia Bible Project. The idea is that each verse gets its own article, which can be used rather as a template. I see a couple of advantages:

verses can be quoted more easily: instead of copying the whole verse, only a short link (like {{:CBP:John 20:8}} ) is neccessary to get a neat result: {{:CBP:John 20:8}} thereby, the use of the CBP is encouraged over other translations. if there is a change in the CBP, the afflicted verses don't have to be tracked down manually, but the change is applied automatically throughout the wiki.

To accomplish this, a new namespace has to be created. That shouldn't be too difficult, as there are only a few exemplary pages prefixed with CBP: at this moment.

But after this, the namespace has to be filled with the existing translated verses. My question: is your bot up to this task?

AugustO 10:53, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

Hi, please strongly reconsider your desire to create a "kinder article." In stating that madonna is a person who has changed to being more spiritual you are buying to the liberal media's lies. It sounds like a madonna fan attempting to weave their bias in, which of course you are not. I think you may want to do more research, and read my recent additions as she is still, if not more so, a wicked and hateful person who has sucked millions of children into raunchy culture, dated murderers and mocked our Lord Jesus Christ who gave his life for us. Madonna deserves only the truth.Legolas2186 Talk 13:14, 14 July 2011 (EST)

And I just had a long conversation with some Wikipedians in Central Park last month, about whether CP is more neutral than WP. Now you want "conservative bias" to denounce Madonna Ciccone? Not even Wikipedia's BLP policy would allow that. I wonder whether you are a liberal tempting me to add bias, just so you can accuse us of being biased. Well, if so, I choose not to cooperate, my dear elf. --Ed Poor Talk 15:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT) I think Legolas here might be a parodist. Would you mind looking into him? NickP 00:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Ed, your compassion sounds a little misplaced to me. Do you also visit the Fred Phelps, Bernie Madoff, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson pages asking people for some "Christian charity" to tone those down too? Look into me all you want please. I dislike Madonna because she has mocked our lord Jesus Christ. Conservative people have respect for Christ end of story. The reason society has degraded is by giving raunchy people like madonna a free pass and pity. I'm the one who wants to print the ACTUAL history of madonna that the liberal media has left out such her dating the felon Chris Paciello. I only want the truth about her in the article. Why is that so bad? I thought this was the one place that might allow the truth.Legolas2186 Talk 10:34, 17 July 2011 (EST)

Ed, can you please look into this guy? He is an obvious parodist. NickP 15:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

First of all - Ed is a senior sysop at this site - I don't know why a few of you have taken upon yourself to post on Andy's talk page when Ed is more than capable of dealing with an alleged parodist on his own. Secondly, just because he is posting radical things on a talk page does not make him a parodist. Looking at his contributions, you could argue that he is edit warring, but since Ed is simultaneously the user in the revert war and an admin, it is up to his judgement as to whether or not a block is deserving. Your collective alarmism has now spread across three talk pages. That's enough.--IDuan 16:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

@NickP, your very.... quick to call somebody else a parodist. Why not leave that to the pro.'s to decide?--SeanS 16:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT) Several others have also pointed out the fact that he acts very suspicious. NickP 16:13, 17 July 2011 (EDT) Saying he "acts suspicious" and saying he's a 100% no way im wrong about this Parodist is two completely different things.--SeanS 16:16, 17 July 2011 (EDT) I prefer what Wikipedia old-timers used to call "soft security". Just help me fix the articles in question. Everything will sort itself out. --Ed Poor Talk 23:34, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Ed, I left three (actually six) problem Categories that need some sort of merging at User_talk:EdBot. Thanks. Rob Smith 15:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, EdBot did not survive the MediaWiki upgrades. --Ed Poor Talk 16:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT) Does that mean it's all got to be done manually? Moving 200 entries into another Category? Only if they really have to be moved. (Meanwhile, if anyone has an idea how a bot can "log in" with the new MediaWiki software, let me know.) --Ed Poor Talk 16:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT) This should help. Indeed, the whole page is quite interesting. AugustO 09:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Hi Ed,

I'm very sorry to come to you with this, but I honestly don't know where else to turn at this point. You have always struck me as the voice of reason and level-headedness here.

Simply put: the current altercation on Andy's talk page is out of control. I recognize that I have no authority to tell sysops what they should or shouldn't do, but it seems to me that basic common courtesy calls for not filling up Andy's talk page with arguments and accusations. Moreover, the very public nature of the dispute is encouraging other users to join in. Some of them are doubtless sincere; others, I suspect, may in fact be parodists seeking to fan the flames (I notice a LOT of recently created accounts.)

Regardless, the fact remains that Andy's talk page has been turned into a general forum for accusations and arguments. At this point, it's degenerated to the level where people are making absolutely vicious personal attacks against certain of the participants. (Kudos to JamesWilson for promptly reverting the most egregious of these.)

You know the other sysops better than most of us; you talk to them; I would certainly hope they trust and respect your opinion. Is there anything you can do to persuade them to take a step back, cool down, and wait for Andy to respond at this point? Everyone involved has made their positions clear; further acrimony can serve no useful purpose.

I'm sorry to trouble you with this, but I really feel that this is both inconsiderate to Andy and deleterious to the Conservapedia project as a whole.

Respectfully,

--Benp 13:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but shouldn't I check with Andy before barging in? It may be that he prefers to let everyone air their opinions. It is not just his courage but his wisdom and compassion that attracted me to this project. --Ed Poor Talk 11:59, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Ed, per the site owner, Administrators "instructions...are to be followed" is no longer operable. I have emailed you a copy of Mr. Schlafly's approval. Rob Smith 13:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Oh, sorry. I was hasty. Feel free to unban MRellek, if you feel I was out of line. --Ed Poor Talk 15:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT) Thank you, Ed. I'm trying to get the other sysops to do more warnings & shorter blocks; let's get a sense of community here. After all, we've known many of these editors (the RW neighbors) for several years now. Rob Smith 15:37, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up HERE. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up HERE. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. Conservative 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

I think I got signed up somehow, after jumping into a discussion. Can we have non-sysops on the panel? I'd like to invite a friend from Wikipedia to join it. --Ed Poor Talk 18:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

If so, maybe you can take a look at this and some of that editor's other contributions. They seem pretty obscure/specialized for the general reader, to me, at least. Thanks! MrMorganH 10:15, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Not an expert, but I know a lot about high school math. Andy's brother knows much more than I do. --Ed Poor Talk 12:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Good morning (afternoon?) Ed, why was my comment reverted? I can't see why it should be? MaxFletcher 17:54, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Gosh, you're quick on the trigger. See your talk page for my response. --Ed Poor Talk 17:58, 16 August 2011 (EDT) I am indeed quick on the trigger, I like Westerns you see..:-) I have responded to you on my talk-page and re asked the question in a more cordial manner. MaxFletcher 17:59, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

The panel proceeding have begun here: Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. Conservative 12:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Ed, in all sincerity you are by far the most interesting person I have met at Conservapedia. I regret that we couldn't get along better, though we did manage to improve a number of things. SamHB 23:12, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

We'd have gotten along better if we more goals in common. Building a trustworthy encyclopedia apparently was not one of them. In this drive by attack you dodged my request for specific instances of the problem you complained of. (Note: saying "all of them" is a a typical liberal dodge. That's like global warming alarmists saying, "Just look at the temperature record; the evidence is all there." For those listening in to this fascinating drama, the difference between real science and liberal junk science is that real scientists provide examples of what they're talking about, so that anyone can check it out and see for themselves. Liberals and other pseudoscientists pretend that they've already made the point. It reminds me of Japan, which always (1) says that it "already apologized" for the comfort women episode while steadfastly (2) refusing ever to admit that it did anything wrong. They are hoping we'll all be too polite to mention that #1 contradicts #2. Nice try on the parting shot, but your pretense of trying oh so hard fools no one. You're always welcome to come back if you ever choose to help this project instead of undermining it with trickery. --Ed Poor Talk 11:41, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Hi Ed, thanks for your help archiving my page. I know you are very experienced with Wikis, but I was wondering why you removed what I wrote about the government shut down of Pontiac destroying American history. A lot of people were really upset about Pontiac's closure and there are lots of websites and articles proving this, why can't it be in the article? I will differ to your judgement because you are so experienced, but just want to understand your reasoning. --CraigF 22:46, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

It can't be in the article until you find a way to make it trustworthy. Use references. You can't just write stuff off the top of your head, because you are not an established author. You are in fact an anonymous person, and we don't even know whether Craig is your real name. If there's a lot of proof for your assertion, be sure to provide references, like: The New York Times reported that after GM was taken over by the government, brands like Saturn and Pontiac were sold or eliminated (link and/or date) If you need help formatting references, lots of people here can help. But you must supply them. --Ed Poor Talk 09:43, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Hi Ed, how do I add pictures? --CraigF 16:08, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

You can't add pictures, until you've made enough useful contributions to earn upload rights. --Ed Poor Talk 21:34, 20 August 2011 (EDT) In addition, Craig, you can use Conservapedia:Image upload requests until you earn uploading privileges. A Sysop will do it for you.--JamesWilson 21:59, 20 August 2011 (EDT) Ok, I'll work even harder to earn my rights! I also wanted to apologize for being so familiar, my mom pointed out that I should be calling you Mr. Poor. I always call adults by their last names in real life, but on the internet I usually forget. Also thanks Mr. Wilson for your advice about upload requests. --CraigF 13:24, 21 August 2011 (EDT) No worries. I wouldn't mind if you called me James or Jim, but I'm glad your mother has taught you well. Also, you will need a lot more work to earn uploading privileges, just so you know. Happy editing in the meantime!--JamesWilson 14:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Just got edit conflicted by you on the Morse code page - what are the odds we'd both be working on it! MaxFletcher 17:19, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

One thought leads to another ... not such long odds. Sorry about stepping on your work. Feel free to revert, and I'll recover later. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 17:22, 24 August 2011 (EDT) Its all OK, I added my work to your version. Great minds think alike, more like an average mind in my case but you catch my drift...:-) MaxFletcher 17:24, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed the format of your signature to use for my own. It's simple and to the point, but looks nice as well, so I thought I would use it as well. Thank you! KevinDavis Talk 16:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

I copied mine from someone else, so "Pay It Forward." --Ed Poor Talk 21:27, 27 August 2011 (EDT) Oh, ok. Thanks for letting me know! KevinDavis Talk 09:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

i looked up milk and butter how is this conserivtive? is it like wikipedia at all what can i add? ty. --Rainbowboiz 00:35, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Not unless your spelling improves. And we are not so much "conservative" as trustworthy. Unlike Wikipedia, we really do try to avoid political bias. Add anything that is correct and useful. --Ed Poor Talk 11:17, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

I know his stage name is much better known (I'm writing the article on him, obviously), but wouldn't you think using the subject's real name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia? If you think the article should be titled under his stage name, you're the boss, but I thought I might want to point that out. Thanks!--JamesWilson 11:14, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

Please help me as I am fairly new to this wiki. I have attempted to propose a discussion for deletion on this particular page. Before disccussing this, I have followed the instructions on templates via the help index [[1]] to add it to a discussion for deletion but this does not seem to work so I have not proceded further - with hindsight I should have guessed there was something wrong by the lack of entries on this page. My reason for wishing to commence this discussion is that I suspect the article (created by a user who does not appear to have an active talk page) seems to me to be parody and trolling to debase the credibility of this project. In my opinion, most of the logic followed in nearly every assertion is spurious and often uses blatant synthesis that a ten year old could question. It is to such an extent that I don't think an "improved" version would be posible. Of course, others may have different oppinions which is why I am trying to be fair and open it for rational discussion. What is the correct procedure? Thank you in advance - answer to my talk page DavidMilton 19:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. Maybe you could post on the talk page, showing a few examples of "spurious" assertions. --Ed Poor Talk 22:46, 7 September 2011 (EDT) Ok I can do this, but I'm surprised that hte Help feature supplies a redundant page on discoussing articles for deletion. I was also under the impression that you had Sysop/Admin powers and would be familiar with such policies as it is a feature on other wikis. DavidMilton 13:31, 8 September 2011 (EDT) Actually I know policy fairly well and do have Sysop/Admin powers. Either provide the requested examples, or drop the matter. --Ed Poor Talk 13:47, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Sid 3050 was blocked for three month for trolling. The only edit he made during the day before his block seems to be to answer to your question in a section above (So, will it go away if you ignore it?) - see his list of contributions. You had personally addressed this comment (But I'll take a look at Sid's material below now, just to be a good sport.), so you should be able to judge whether such a comment is trolling. Could you please review Sid's block? In a timely fashion? Thanks, RonLar 09:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Sid was trolling. Whether this justifies a three month block is up to the admin in question. I'm always open to suggestions for making Conservapedia more trustworthy. If you have anything specific in mind, please speak up. Of particular interest to me would be any material relating to the contrast between conservative and liberal viewpoints on American political issues, as well as philosophy, religion and science. To my regret, repeated invitations to include users who are ideological opponents of this project have not met with an enthusiastic response. It's almost as if they wish to conceal their ideological differences; ironically, this could be seen as self-censorship. If anyone wants to describe liberal POV here they may, provided only that it is clearly labeled as such - not presented as gospel. This should not be an onerous requirement: it's the same as Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Ed Poor Talk 10:42, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Help! A user called CortA is currently vandalising articles. --SamCoulter 13:15, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

OK, Andy blocked him. --SamCoulter 13:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

I was quite astonished by your last actions. I slept over it and want to clarify my earlier remark.

I'd appreciate if you would be less generous with your slight innuendos ("thanks for nothing!", "misled by RonLar"): these make it difficult to assume good faith on your side. And they have the annoying tendency to backfire... my statement "Where is the right place to propose an alternative viewpoint? Surely not in the article itself, but on its talk-page. This is a simple necessity for all protected articles, but a good idea for most of those articles some sysops feel strongly about." is hardly misleading - even though it is not written by a native speaker! In fact, it is echoing the sentiments of Conservapedia's editing etiquettes: You should discuss changes made by an Administrator before reverting their edits. Administrators are charged with seeing that article content is in line with Conservapedia guidelines. Edit warring with an Administrator usually results in a temporary block. You should not alter the editorial content of an article away from a conservative, or Christian, or family friendly "tone" without discussing proposed changes on the talk page. Never make substantial edits to an article without discussing your changes first on the talk page. If you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change(s), the changes are just formatting / copy editing, you should proceed. Inserting an alternative viewpoint is most certainly a substantial edit - and the etiquettes advise you to discuss such an edit at first on the talk-page. So, I made a true statement, in accordance with Conservapedia's policy on editing, and you misread it. To reiterate: You weren't misled, you simply misread it. And this misunderstanding (of your part) you took as a reason to erase the whole section and seemingly not to read the rest of my comment? Deleting a section on censorship is always a little bit ironic... BTW: whether the article is protected or not is not of any interest for the discussion of censorship! A library does not only censor the books it throws from it shelves, but the books it doesn't allow into it shelves in the first place! I put the whole section up here, so you can read it carefully again. Take your time, but nevertheless, react timely - you said that would be important....

RonLar 12:05, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

At this point, I think it's become abundantly clear that complaining about censorship will get you nowhere. I realize users will come up and be frustrated by certain site traditions, but that's just the way Conservapedia is run, RonLar.--CamilleT 13:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT) Sorry, I thought you were saying the article was protected. Also, I'm astonished to think that you consider adding alternative viewpoints to be something that has to be cleared with a sysop first. My understanding of project policy is that all contributors are free to describe non-conservative, non-Christian views ... especially on an article describing a controversy between the two sides. Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --Ed Poor

Talk 16:38, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

RonLar 16:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT) Eh? I thought you wanted help. Please answer my question: Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --Ed Poor Talk 20:39, 17 September 2011 (EDT) How is it a sensible use of my time to answer new questions when you seem to ignore my answers to your old ones? Please remember your statements: Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you. and I asked for an instance of ideological censorship. Well, you find it here: User:RonLar#Again.2C_the_previous_example_of_ideological_censorship.2C_in_detail Of course I am willing to answer any question concerning this specific example of censorship, especially those which indicate that you read the whole comment. Thanks, RonLar 02:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Nearly two weeks later: Did you take a look? Or even better, did you read the whole thing? RonLar 18:17, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

In general I'm a Clancy fan but I think some of the criticism you removed was valid. For example by the time he wrote "The Bear and the Dragon" his standards of research had perceptibly dropped (The AH-64 has a 20mm gun? Really?) and "Red Rabbit" and "The Teeth of the Tiger" were frankly rubbish. Maybe some of the criticisms should stay? --SamCoulter 23:09, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Anything can stay if properly sourced: X said Y about Z. --Ed Poor Talk 23:10, 17 September 2011 (EDT) What would be an acceptable source? I have all Clancy's books; would they be acceptable sources for pointing out declining standards of technical accuracy? --SamCoulter 23:20, 17 September 2011 (EDT) LOL, your interpretation of Clancy's writings would be (what is called at Wikipedia) original research. If you don't know what I meant by 'properly sourced', then you're unqualified to contribute anything further to this project. If you do know, you're just toying with me. Godspeed. --Ed Poor Talk 23:23, 17 September 2011 (EDT) Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I'd do is reference both Clancy's books and technical sources that contradict them, such as the fact that the AH-64 does NOT have a 20mm gun. Like I said I'm generally a Clancy fan - "Without Remorse" may just be the best thriller ever written - but his last few books have been a bit disappointing and his research has definitely slipped. --SamCoulter 23:28, 17 September 2011 (EDT) What I would propose is to remove the comments about "The sum of all fears" - a nuclear weapon could be built with a table saw and a small lathe, never mind optical milling equipment - but keep and expand on the comment about the declining level of technical accuracy. The divergence of the Ryanverse from reality isn't important because it IS fiction, but the declining level of research and tendency towards unrealistic assessments of real-world capabilities IS important. For example "The Bear and the Dragon" is utterly unrealistic even in the Ryanverse. If China invaded Russia they'd get about ten feet over the border before being annihilated. The fortifitions on the Sino-Russian border make the Maginot line look like a sand castle on the beach, and they were actually designed by strategic thinkers. --SamCoulter 23:44, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

On second thought, maybe I'm being too hard on you. I recently started tutoring schoolchildren, and I'm learning to be more patient with their quaint notions. After all, making wrong guesses and getting them corrected is often the best way to learn. Shall I not condescend to grant you the same grace? ;-)

I've read all Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan and John Clark novels. I always assumed that any discrepancies were inserted on purpose; Clancy certainly would have no reason to put correct information on how to make a suitcase-sized nuclear bomb in his books: what conservative would want to inspire a copycat crime?

If you want to include "criticism" by some published author who says an attack helicopter does or does not have a certain sized gun, go ahead. He's also not very accurate about the software used in the stock market, although it was a key plot element in Debt of Honor. (Come to think of it, if a man knew everything and wanted to make money betting on horse races, he would know not to put all his winnings on the next race ("John Doe" TV series pilot). --Ed Poor Talk 15:56, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

Language like this makes me extremely uncomfortable: "when grownups talk", "woman's logic is strange, don't you think", etc. (especially this in his earlier statements: "and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985")

First, I am not a woman. My identity is very well known and I am quite easy to find. Ottava means eight, and Ottava Rima means Eight Rhyme, a type of rhyming pattern used in Italian epic poetry. Second, his language is condescending, misogynistic, religiously bigoted, etc. Third, his claims about the Big Bang Theory are rather strange, conspiratorial, and nothing I have ever heard by any legitimate scientist. I cannot honestly believe that he is a real conservative but I believe he is a plant just like many of the people who vandalize. His job is to produce some of the most absurd stuff to try and make conservatives look awful. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but his language does not seem like something that is appropriate. I talked to Geoff Plourde about this quite a bit tonight because it bothered me a lot. Ottava (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Atheism and obesity - is this a joke? It seems to be just a list of fat atheists. It even has random tidbits like "Chuck Norris endorses the Total Gym exercise system.[59]" I know many priests who are overweight, and many religious people who are. I know many atheists who are ultra thing and anorexic.

"Christian and Library of Congress researcher's explanations of reports of UFOs " How would that even deal with atheism and obesity? Yet it is in there.

The page looks like it was created to make Conservapedia and conservatism look really bad. Sigh. Ottava (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

User:Conservative is good at attracting readership to this website. The Atheism and obesity seems to me a bit of payback for the liberals who call Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot. --Ed Poor Talk 15:57, 24 September 2011 (EDT) And in his payback, he demeans everyone who is overweight, including myself. I've dealt with mean-spirited behavior from people about weight the majority of my life - there is no acceptable reason for being hostile about the issue. --SharonW 16:53, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

easy to find --DrDean 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Not as easy as you say. See Talk:Bestiality. --Ed Poor Talk 15:44, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

Hi Ed, I would like to bring something to your attention as a senior administrator. I have been in private communication with User:SamCoulter over the last few weeks. There is nothing in his attitude and comments to me in private and his behaviour here on Conservapedia to suggest this user is anything but sincere. He was recently blocked for the edit here (the last edit he made - I will not link directly to it because the topics are extremely offensive and not family friendly). For this effort he was blocked for three months. His edit was a) relevant b) correct according to the article linked and c) was a link which was on the front page already. It seems that some users wanted to quote the article without implying the articles conclusions as they were at loggerheads with a users personal opinion. I don't think the user should have been blocked but now he is I won't remove it but I do believe that 3 months is extremely heavy-handed. I don't want to create controversy so I will not chnage the block myself but I am bringing this up with you and User:Karajou also (I am unable to contact the blocking sysop). Thank you. MaxFletcher 20:11, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Keep him blocked. He vandalized twice. In fact, I am going to increase the time blocked. Conservative 21:02, 25 September 2011 (EDT) Do you have evidence of this vandalism? MaxFletcher 21:04, 25 September 2011 (EDT) If you want to defend those recent contributions be my guest. If you want to wrangle with me about them, it is not going to happen. Conservative 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT) I tell you now there was no vandalism you are blocking a user for adding sourced and factual material. You are blocking him for no reason! MaxFletcher 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, but it's actually very easy to avoid a block. I suggest you start coaching new users about courtesy, project goals, etc.

I myself disagree with the project goals of RW, but they haven't given me any long blocks. Why? Because I follow their rules in their house.

Adolescents often have trouble figuring out what the rules are, or trouble realizing the benefits of following them. (In the long run, civil disobedience campaigns against beneficial institutions such as Democracy and Free Markets simply backfire.) --Ed Poor Talk 10:52, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

I respectfully disagree with you. It's incredibly easy to get blocked on this site, because honestly, it appears to depend on the whim of the blocking editor (doesn't like what's being said because it's contrary to the blocking editor's opinion, got up on the wrong side of the bed, had a fight with someone in real life and are taking it out on editors here at CP.) You yourself just handed out an infinite block for defending someone. Many editors, myself included, have protested User:Conservative's articles and his method of defending them. If anyone objects, he automatically deems them an atheist/evolutionist, etc., which at least in my case, is far from the truth. I object to several things. First, his use of "obese" as a ad hominem attack against people whose ideas he disagrees with. I've dealt with bullying behavior about weight most of my life, and have tried to point out to him how hurtful his taunts are, but he thinks it's amusing, and the other sysops here (yourself included) appear to agree. I'm all for a good discussion about ideas, but when the attacks become personal, and all-inclusive, then yes, I'm going to protest. Second, most of the articles are just badly, badly written. They meander miles away from the original topic, they tend to be a bunch of quotes lumped together, and in many of them, the point that he's trying to make is missed completely. The actual subjects might be valid, and important enough to warrent an article on them, but creating 10 articles that say the same thing, and that can (and should) be consolidated into one, well-researched and well-written document, is just poor scholarship. --SharonW 12:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT) Well, thank you for not giving me an excuse to block you! ;-) Very well written . . . As I've said elsewhere, [2] I disagree with the stance of "the admin" who is making ad hominem attacks on atheists; I think it's a misguided attempt to attract readership. If anyone's had a good edit reverted for a bad reason, they can just let me know. Just remember: if anyone is criticizing to condemn, I'm not interested, but if they want me to change things, I'm the man who can do it. --Ed Poor Talk 16:03, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

I see you blocked BrentH for trolling and reverted 2 of his edits. He linked Professor to an existing article here on CP, Professor values. Why was that trolling? --SharonW 19:55, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps prior edits?--SeanS 20:01, 1 October 2011 (EDT) User: Ed Poor did not appreciate the section right above this one--CamilleT 21:14, 1 October 2011 (EDT) BrentH made a perfectly reasonable and respectful suggestion. It would appear from the edit history that he was referring to an article about Winona Ryder, created by Ed Poor, which contained one piece of trivia but no basic information regarding the person whatsoever. What BrentH said is simply common sense, and I too cannot see how this can justify a block. DavidZa 22:45, 1 October 2011 (EDT) Indeed, certain longstanding members of this community seem to have rather thin skin. I did not see BrentH's post as offensive or out of line--CamilleT 22:54, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

You wrote that on my talkpage. This is an encyclopedia.. Well, if it is articles like bestiality and Britain ahould be deleted because, as I have pointed out numerous times, it has nothing to do with bestiality and Britain. MaxFletcher 16:27, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Article deleted. [3] Hey thanks Ed. Just for the record though I wasn't "bothered" by the content so much as bothered by the lack of content. As the commandments say - everything must be true and verifiable which that article clearly wasn't. Many thanks. I must admit - I have a lot of respect for you and karajou. MaxFletcher 16:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT) Ed, evolution was birthed in Britain and secularism has grown rampant in their country. Now their society is a mess and there is rioting in the streets. In addition, the Guardian just published a puff piece on bestiality. I say enough is enough and it's time their moral rot is exposed. I realize that pointing out that folly and consequences of atheism/evolutionism annoys liberals, but so what. Not only are they grossly and obviously in error, but atheists/evolutionists have shown themselves to be timid little bunnies. I restored the article because I feel confident that Conservapedia can stand up to foolish and timid little bunnies. :) Conservative 17:21, 2 October 2011 (EDT) Enough with the insults conservative. I am neither a liberal nor an atheist and am sick to death of you accusing me of such. The article has nothing, I repeat nothing about the practice in Britain. I say again nothing. You poor scholarship is on show and we can all see it. MaxFletcher 19:02, 2 October 2011 (EDT) Ed, a Brit was trying to bring over his deviant farming practices to the United States as can be seen HERE. Conservative 20:28, 2 October 2011 (EDT) You misread the article, Conservative. The Oregon farm is owned by an American. The British man was visiting it. Read here for a version of the story that makes who owned the farm clearer. There is no way I'd let children any where this site with Conservatives despicable articles all over the place. MaxFletcher 20:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT) Max, I heard Oregon was pretty liberal. It figures the farm was in Oregon. Conservative 22:30, 2 October 2011 (EDT) I heard that most states are pretty liberal... But that doesn't make the rumors true. ~ JonG ~ 22:34, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Oregon voted for Obama plus fairly recently they had the most atheists per capita in the United States. Conservative 22:57, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Omaha, Nebraska also voted for obama but calling it liberal is very silly--SeanS 22:58, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Oregon is liberal Conservative 23:07, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

I'm slightly confused as to why it's relevant or not that Oregon is liberal. After all the state DOES have a law against bestiality, so that argues against liberals being tolerant of it. --ColSharp 08:33, 3 October 2011 (EDT) Since when do liberals obey the laws on the books in the first place? This photo [4] is proof that liberals have no intention of obeying laws regarding littering. They trashed Washington D.C. when they got their way, January 20, 2009. Karajou 09:10, 3 October 2011 (EDT) There's a law in New Jersey about recycling, yet I know several conservatives who refuse to recycle. Why is this? ~ JonG ~ 13:26, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

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

I am disappointed in you most of all Ed. Coming from wikipedia and being the first to jump on others for incivility you ignore when it comes to the ruling chaste of Conservapedia. You should be ashamed. MaxFletcher 17:48, 12 October 2011 (EDT) Max, I think you assume entirely too much about my dispositions. You really don't know what extent I "cackle" or if I "cackle" at all. You also don't know what value I place on "winning". In fact, you don't even know if I am one person or a team. I/we remain inscrutable. Conservative 19:24, 12 October 2011 (EDT) User:Conservative, this is getting silly. You wrote for instance: Actually KhalidM, I have a very outgoing personality and a university professor friend of mine told me that I would make a great administrator because I can be very diplomatic. While I realize that I will never cultivate a large atheist or liberal fan club, I can live with that. Conservative 20:34, 5 October 2011 (EDT) So, while your grammatical gender may be undetermined, your number isn't. AugustO 15:44, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

The article of King George I was deleted as a creation of vandals. On the talk page I read the comment of User:RJJense: I added much new text, all of which I wrote, and previously posted on Citizendium. I looked up the article at Citizendium and it seemed to be quite informative - certainly not vandalistic! Could it be restored? I'd like to insert a valid link into electors. AugustO 15:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

I restored the last version by RJJense. I feel confident that his last version was a good article. Conservative 16:34, 13 October 2011 (EDT) Thanks - it really seems so! AugustO 16:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Hello, I noticed that you placed the quotation marks around the term "New Ordeal." As you have probably noticed I have been attempting to fix that article. Quite frankly, the article is pretty bad to start with and several of the references that prior authors cited have nothing to do with the topic. Do you know if there is procedure in which this article may be recommended for deletion? --Padams 15:33, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Better to mark it as an essay. --Ed Poor Talk 16:31, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

I looked at Conservapedia:Editor's_guide#If_you_get_blocked:

If you get blocked, it's probably because you (1) broke the rules and (2) ignored hints, requests and/or warnings. So the first thing you should do is review your communications with others here, particularly those who are admins. Have you been trying to get along by following our practices and supporting our goals, or have you been trying to change our ways? If you are new here, it's best to go along to get along. After you have contributed a lot, we'll be more likely to listen to your suggestions, but breaking the rules will just end up with eliminating you from the project.

I can't think of any rule which I broke I was requested to to do some charitable work somewhere instead. I'm already engaged in such work, so this doesn't apply... I don't try to change our ways. I try to correct factual errors (e.g., ?d?? can be translated as at this moment or that it is right to call Carolus Martellus the grandson of Carolus Magnus.)

Perhaps upon reflection you may realize that you'd rather be part of the project than insist on your own way. You might want to apologize and get unblocked.

I don't insist on my own way and I apologize if anyone feels insulted by my criticism.

If you want to discuss your block, do not create a new account. Rather, use one of the following methods to appeal the decision (listed in order of preference).

1. Contact the person who blocked you (see below).

2. If you get no reply after a reasonable amount of time, you may contact any Administrator.

3. Email cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com giving the name of the Administrator or editor who blocked you, and the date, and it will be forwarded on to them.

If you contact more than one person about this, please do them the courtesy of letting them know who else you have tried contacting.

This should be obvious from the header of my emails.

Contacting an Administrator or editor can usually be done by one of the following methods:

Use the "Email this user" link in the toolbox. This, however, will only work if both you and the Administrator or editor have enabled this on your/their respective accounts. The Administrator or editor may have provided an email address or other contact information (e.g. AIM) on their user page. This section seems to be obsolete: email this user doesn't work for any of the administrators I tried to reach. And I couldn't get Ed Poor's email address via his user page. So we are in a Catch 22 kind of situation... I emailed to aschlafy@aol.com, conservapedia@zoho.com and cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com. I didn't get any reply (is 1-2 days a reasonable amount of time to wait? I thinks so...) to my short email which stated: I understand that my criticisms of CBP and the World History Lectures are quite unwelcome, but they are hardly trolling! I'd appreciate if you lift my block. So I decided to create a new account to appeal the block, hoping that the advice against this action is as obsolete as other sections of the editor's guide.

ErnestO 07:56, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)

August, I think you should start a career in sales. You certainly have the persistence to be a good salesman. :) Conservative 09:47, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Ed Poor, the block of AugustO is now more than a week old. I tried to reach you via various channels - could you please lift the block as the stated reason ("trolling") doesn't apply? ErnestO 11:09, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Please get a writing plan from him and get it to me, and I'll consider it. Meanwhile, any sysop is free to unblock him. --Ed Poor Talk 21:01, 31 October 2011 (EDT) Is that any official Sysop, or anyone with Block rights? I'd be happy to unblock Mr O so that he can post his writing plan.--CPalmer 10:25, 1 November 2011 (EDT) On second thoughts, perhaps I'll just go ahead. Please reverse my action if I'm overstepping the mark.--CPalmer 10:33, 1 November 2011 (EDT) Thanks for the unblock! I read the article on the writing plan, and I'll try to provide you with one. This would be easier if a sample plan were provided. But nonetheless, here it is:

Mainly I'm interested in the CBP. Mind you, I'm not Junker Jörg, I'm not capable to create a translation on my own which stands for hundreds of years. But I think that translating the Bible in a group, and extensively discussing your work is a marvelous way to get a greater insight into the Book of books. While doing so, I try to dig into what Conservative calls the ANE culture, as you can see here, where I try to shed light on timekeeping during the Roman empire.

When I came here, I thought that there would be a group of likewise interested individuals, but at the moment there seems to be only one other editor with similar interests.

As my approach to the CBP generates quite a few edits on talk-pages, I balance these with edits to articles. These tend to by connected somehow with my namesakes (August of Saxony, Ernest August of Hanover), the history - or just happen on pages where I read something which puzzled me :-)

AugustO 09:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)

It would be a great idea to merge the articles. In fact, if you were interested in expanding the article, I might be interested in helping.--James Wilson 14:28, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Yes, please help me organize this. We should give prominence to conservative views, but let's steer away from censoring liberal views. It would be nice if liberals could see why conservatives believe differently. --Ed Poor Talk 14:43, 29 October 2011 (EDT) OK!--James Wilson 14:48, 29 October 2011 (EDT) I merged the articles and added a bit on abortion and political ideology. How is it?--James Wilson 21:53, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

perhaps it should be bed bugs (plural), and now when i make an edit and it goes thru, if i try to make another one i get "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it" but no one has. Going back to page and trying anew results in the same. 3.1: longetivity should be longevity.

Jesus is Lord, thanksDaniel1212 07:58, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback HERE

Your assistance would be much appreciated. Conservative 15:05, 16 November 2011 (EST)

I have explained my ideas in private email to you and Andy. --Ed Poor Talk 12:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)

There are a few messages to you here: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Air_superiority Conservative 02:14, 26 May 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for picking up some of my "wiki litter" that I left behind (redirects to non-existent pages). I will try to be more diligent as far as not littering in the future. :) Conservative 19:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

You're welcome. And don't bother yourself: it's better for you to focus your time on building the wiki, while less talented contributors like myself do the routine housekeeping. If I had your writing skill, I'd be making whole article like you do. --Ed Poor Talk 11:34, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

Fixing a MediaWiki message:

Hello,

Could you perform the edit I described here, on very bottom of the page? I asked Aschlafly but he's probably busy now.

Best Cipe 15:33, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

I know the basics of Wiki coding and not the advanced level coding. I would ask someone else. Try Ed Poor. Conservative 16:32, 13 July 2012 (EDT) Unfortunately, I cannot edit Ed's talk page. Could you suggest someone different? Or message him? The change is rather small and requires only copy-and-paste. More directly: you can copy contents of this: User:Cipe/MW_fix to: MediaWiki:Revision-info. Even if my suggestion is wrong, it can be reverted, so there is no danger. Cipe 16:41, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Okay, I did it. But where can I see the results? --Ed Poor Talk 17:53, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Thank you very much. You'll see it when checking older revision. Here is an example: [5].

I noticed that MediaWiki has a different message when you're checking current revision. I'll prepare fix in a moment. Cipe 17:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

The message seems to have logged me out. I think it needs fixing. --Ed Poor Talk 17:56, 13 July 2012 (EDT) I also got logged out, but only once. I can consistently see the new message now. Perhaps the software logs out when a edit to MediaWiki is made. Could you please copy User:Cipe/MW fix 2 to MediaWiki:Revision-info-current? I promise it's the last change :) It is shown for a permalink to current revision. Cipe 18:08, 13 July 2012 (EDT) I don't think that's it. I think you need to put the www. in front of www.conservapedia.com --Ed Poor Talk 18:09, 13 July 2012 (EDT) It seems to work. I can see the messages: for past revisions and for current revision. Thanks for changing. Cipe 18:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

I really appreciate being able to get in contact with you directly when the circumstances arise. GregG 18:39, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Now he can try to justify what he said about the article. Davidspencer 14:29, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

Do you think it would be appropriate to use this image in the Current TV article? It's already in Gore's main article, so why not include it in the article about his obscure TV network on channel 9800 on my TV? --James Wilson 20:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Hey, I just wanted to apologise for the comments I made related to you, they were impolite and unnecessary. I don't have anything against you or anything, I just posted something that I thought was relevent without thinking how it would be taken by anyone other than myself, as it happened they were rude and quite personal. I acknowledge that I behaved quite badly, and in future I will try to avoid giving you, or others, offense. So..... virtual handshake?Cmurphynz 06:18, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

Oh, don't be so dramatic. Just comment on the articles and issues of the day, and forget about personalities. That's how this project's supposed to run. --Ed Poor Talk 21:33, 18 July 2012 (EDT) lol. Nah it's difficult to tell over the internet how people are reacting, so for all I knew you could have been quite insulted or something, and I had to make sure that I was being very clear. Anyway, coolCmurphynz 01:03, 19 July 2012 (EDT) I'm not sure you get it: We don't want personal remarks on this wiki, clear or not. You need to be clear only about one thing: what you intend to write about an article topic. You must not comment on other users in any way. Is that clear? --Ed Poor Talk 11:01, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Poor,

As someone who has been the subject of personal comments (see [6], [7], [8], [9]), I would like to share my opinion on Conservapedia's policy on personal attacks.

I think it is very appropriate to make relevant comments on editing and other wiki behavior to determine what the best practices are with regards to editing and other actions and, if necessary, to instruct users who may not know better about such practices. For example, I have informed two administrators about redacting the automatically-generated deletion log entry to remove sensitive material. I have also asked one administrator to include source information in that user's uploaded images, requests with which this user has complied. Likewise, if someone has a habit of posting comments on talk pages without signing them, it is appropriate to inform them of how to sign posts. Further, if someone is about to violate 90/10, a warning is definitely appropriate. None of these have to do with the real-life personality that these editors, many of whom are brothers and sisters in Christ, have; these comments focus on on-wiki behavior.

Further, I think that if someone is going to make a statement regarding real-life facts or Conservapedia's commandments, policies, and best practices, it is appropriate to debate this statement without going into personality details. Such debate may very well include Socratic or rhetorical questioning as a argumentative device.

Of course, Mr. Schlafly is the owner of the site, so he has the final say in this, but I'm sure he would agree with what I have written. Although attacks on another editor's real-life personality should generally be removed, I do not see the need to remove good-faith debate and discussion over user behavior at Conservapedia.

Thank you for reading this. GregG 12:36, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Yeah, thanks, Greg. If I err on the side of "absolutely nothing about the person" to an absurd point, please continue to help me out. I'm mainly opposed to comments like, "You're a jerk" or "I don't have to follow the rules." Nothing wrong with friendly personal comments, like, "Thanks for pointing out that a rigid, absolutist enforcement of the rules may not be wise." --Ed Poor Talk 11:01, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

I saw your Arbcom case over at Wikipedia just today looking through for cases of bias there. :) Wikipedia's - nuts, huh? Lol. I ran into the Obama bias team over there in Scjessey, Wikidemon, and company, back in late 2009. It's become so hopelessly biased by now you've just got to laugh. They know they're keeping all controversy out of the Obama page and how biased they are, and don't care. Well, all my facts are at Conservapedia's services now. :) Anyway, just saying it's nice to see another ex-Wikipedian here I guess - hope we get some more! :) --Jzyehoshua 01:15, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

'User names based on your real name or initials are preferred' does not state that you will be blocked. Also.--Wishnaka 19:51, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

Inappropriate user name. It has been a general principle that one's user name be "based on one's real first name and last initial", though there are a number of reasons why that is not always practical. The point is that we don't like the kind of foolish "handles" that are often used in various blogs and social web sites. If you run afoul of this by accident, you will be asked to create a new account, and doing so will not be considered sockpuppetry. Of course, some user names are essentially just vandalism, and are treated that way.

If you don't object, I suggest shortening his block to maybe 3 days. His remark, while rude and impertinent, did have some substance, and a hard block doesn't serve to do anything but cause more unhappiness. Thanks for considering, brenden 20:48, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

If you unblock him, you're responsible. --Ed Poor Talk 20:54, 25 August 2012 (EDT) I recommend keeping the week. And don't > dont. --James Wilson 21:01, 25 August 2012 (EDT) Thanks for pointing out the typo.brenden 23:35, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Poor, Please do a careful side-by-side comparison of Michael Baumgartner and the Wikipedia article. I did a google search on "Michael Baumgartner" and came up with a number of sources including the Wikipedia article. I took notes from all of the sources, and wrote a new article based on my notes. I honestly believe that the article uses a different set of sources, covers ideas in a different order, and covers the topic differently than Wikipedia. Please take another look, and if you agree, please restore Michael Baumgartner. Thanks, Wschact 14:05, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

I understand the workload you face. Could you please look at the article and reconsider? Wschact 14:51, 27 August 2012 (EDT) Already restored in good faith; I trust you, and I'm not going to compare it closely. I'll leave that to others. --Ed Poor Talk 14:54, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

On the death of the Rev Dr Moon. JuanMotame 18:54, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for the welcome. I wonder if you could help me. I tried Special:MovePage/William. J. Fulbright but apparently I don't have permission. The page should be at J. William Fulbright, the name of the founder of the Fulbright scholarship program.

Done. Karajou 17:26, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

You changed the first sentence of the protected article on Sun Myung Moon from the present to the past tense. Could you take care of the rest of the article, too? Thanks. AugustO 05:35, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

Feel free to take care of that yourself. --Ed Poor Talk 13:01, 5 September 2012 (EDT) I took care of it. --James Wilson 13:21, 5 September 2012 (EDT) Thanks to both of you! AugustO 13:32, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

Mr. Poor, I'm relatively new here and don't completely know my way around. Would you please look at my comment concerning American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel. If my view is in line with the site, I'm quite certain that a template or procedure is needed at this point. If my views are not in line with the site, please feel free to remove that comment as you see fit. You seem experienced here, so your guidance is requested. --Nouniquenames 00:03, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

I've noticed that you moved/redirected the above article to Essay: Psychological manipulation in the Bible on grounds "not a general article; case study uses a Bible story". I've got somewhat confused about this step, because IMHO the article is general and only the case study section itself contains a "Bible story". In fact the rest is a combination of various sources, some of them far from having anything to do w/ Bible at all. I was by far not completely done with that article and now I actually do not know how to continue working on it. It says now "This Is An Original Work. Contributors should add their signatures to the end section. If published, a notice will be posted and, if desired, contributors will be recognized." but that was not my idea at all, I would be more than happy if anyone could help to extend that, in my opinion, general article. If I could suggest anything then I would like to suggest to move only the 'case study' section to the essay realms and keep the rest as general article with hyperlink to that essay in appropriate, perhaps 'See Also' section. I also deem as deficiency that article does not appear in the Psychology category now, I believe it belongs there.--AK 10:35, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

As for your rationale for redirect on 'Objections to evolution', namely "I thought we already had plenty of articles opposing the Theory of evolution", I agree with you that "we have", but still would dare to oppose the redirect on grounds that 'Objections to evolution' is an article that brainwashes people at WP and enjoys special defence by witch-hunters who heavily suppress any different points of view there thus I believe it is of significant importance to have available alternative view on the same topic under the very same title.--AK 10:50, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

I was doing some random page editing and found that there was a whole load of quote templates you created a while ago that link to nowhere and nothing seems to link to them. It seems the template for linking these quotes never got off the ground. I'm proposing that these either be deleted or put into some sort of quote page as I don't think there much use at the moment (except for possibly taking up server space). Kind Regards Dvergne 02:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

I am not surprised to see you make changes to the Unificationism page in defense of your church, but why did you remove the part in which Moon told an interviewer, "God is living in me and I am the incarnation of himself." "The whole world is in my hand and I will conquer and subjugate the world." [10]

Are you saying the BBC made that up? Daniel1212 08:23, 14 November 2012 (EST)

You can put that back in. Sorry for the delayed answer; my day job keeps me pretty busy. Be advised, though, that Rev. Moon himself disputed the conquer and subjugate quote, telling Newsweek interviewers that he had been quoted out of context. --Ed Poor Talk 10:35, 20 November 2012 (EST)

From Aschlafly's talk page Yesterday after I prayed an idea came to me (most likely from god) to stop the spammers from registering the spam accounts. If we can move away from user captcha and instead use a question that requires some knowledge (for example what team does tim tebow sit on the bench for or which team did he turned around) as the spambots will be completely flummoxed by this. Dvergne 09:16, 19 November 2012 (EST)

The questycaptcha is excellent for this purpose. It stops ocr bots, and most paid spammers. The code would be: require_once( "$IP/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit.php" ); $wgCaptchaClass = 'QuestyCaptcha'; $arr = array ( "A question?" => "An answer!", "What is this wiki's name?" => "Conservapedia", 'Who is Tim Tebow' => 'An athlete', foreach ( $arr as $key => $value ) { $wgCaptchaQuestions[] = array( 'question' => $key, 'answer' => $value ); }

Which you would place in /rootfiledirectory/localsettings.phpbrenden 15:54, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Given your considerable experience in operating and maintaining wiki's like Wikipedia and convservapedia, do you think you would be able to implement this ? Regards Dvergne 05:12, 23 November 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly wrote the essay Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space (Epistle to the Hebrews). First he wrote:

"The Epistle to the Hebrews is the nineteenth book of the New Testament, and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it."

User:Iduan toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:

"The Epistle to the Hebrews is the nineteenth book of the New Testament, and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it."

I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.

I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.

I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person in a Biblical matter (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.

--AugustO 19:26, 25 November 2012 (EST)

If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? --Ed Poor Talk 23:37, 5 December 2012 (EST) "Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? " As I tried to convey with the phrase "this wouldn't have been to problematic", there is nothing wrong with the essay Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?. But I think it is problematic that the insight of the essay spills over into a page in the main space, i.e., Epistle to the Hebrews, and becomes a fact during this process. "If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree." It's the other way round: stating the insight in an article in the main space without making it clear that the only source for this idea is Andrew Schlafly is lending it an improper credibility. If you read an unsourced, unmarked statement in an encyclopedia, the reader generally takes it as a kind of common knowledge, even more so if he is e.g., a high-school pupil. --AugustO 02:28, 6 December 2012 (EST)

Conservapedia is a mix of opinion and fact. Each is clearly marked. Talk pages are filled with unsourced claims, and we make very few efforts to police such talk.

If there is currently an unsourced, unmarked statement in an article that needs attention, please point it out to me. --Ed Poor Talk 12:09, 12 December 2012 (EST)

Thank you - if unsourced, unmarked statements are reintroduced into the article, I'll point them out to you! --AugustO 14:02, 12 December 2012 (EST)

Im new here and need some help. I figured I would go to you since you seem very involved in the community. I recently tried to instate an article about R*tional Wiki and suddenly it was deleted. I thought since we had an article about Wikipedia that we could write about wikis. I also noticed that it had been deleted several times by the same people. Why? The words are spam filtered to. I feel that we need to write about the faults and propaganda of this completely biased website. Not to mention they completely badmouth you in the most rude ways. Please help...--Colesmithsayshi 14:18, 31 December 2012 (EST)

I was wanting to know what is the significance of mass weddings in the unification church ? I see your church has recently conducted it's first mass wedding since the very untimely death of the great Sun Myung Moo. Dvergne 10:05, 17 February 2013 (EST)

I am not sure how to answer the message you sent me. There does not seem to be a way to respond attached to the message you sent. Do I just respond in this open forum? Thanks.

Greetings, Ed. We haven't communicated in quite a while.

The reason I am writing is that I saw your recent Essay:Campaign_to_make_Conservapedia_unusable. I know that this has long been an issue, and that you and I have both put a lot of effort into making math/science articles accessible. I have one comment about it: Your audience for this essay is just yourself. All the people who made things inaccessible—Foxtrot, Lemonpeel, Jaques, etc, are long gone. So, if you want the situation to improve, instead of writing an essay, you're just going to have to make the improvements yourself.

Actually, I'm not sure what articles you have in mind for your criticism. If it's all the topology stuff (Regular_space, Sequentially_compact, Hausdorff_space, ...), you have my sympathy, and you will just have to delete them. No one will improve them. But I strongly advise you not to delete them. They aren't doing any harm, and no one reads them (except me :-). An encyclopedia is not judged by how esoteric its most esoteric articles are, but by how well its mainstream articles are written, and how well those mainstream articles cover the field. I think the mainstream math articles at Conservapedia, like integers, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers, are pretty good.

Which brings me to my specific point. It isn't true that no one edits math articles any more. There was a small amount of activity on integers and natural numbers recently. Perhaps this is what led you to write the essay. I don't think there was anything over-the-top about the recent edits, and I think you sometimes over-react to things like this. I believe that the recent edits in that area were well-intentioned, and trying to do a good job.

Giving a really good definition of the integers or natural numbers, in the way that you and I would like, at the appropriate level but with real clarity, is impossible. Saying "evenly divisible by 1" doesn't work, because the reader who doesn't know what an integer is will have no conception of what division is or what "evenly divisible" means. Saying "has no fractional part" doesn't work either. I can see what the author intended--numbers are things like "3.7", and ".7" is the fractional part. So, having no fractional part means it is something like just 3. That's correct, but it relies on having an intuitive notion of real numbers, that is, things like 3 and 3.1 and 3.7 and 3.14159.... (Speaking of which, happy pi day!!!) Now most people have an intuitive feel for numbers with fractions well before they have to think about a formal definition of natural numbers. I know I did. That is, I knew about "3" in the context of "3.7 without the .7", or "the biggest markings on a ruler, rather than all the small ones."

So how do you write the article? You do the best you can, giving an imprecise defintion in terms of "numbers that you count with", or something like that. (By the way, I really really liked your "mathisfun" web link explaining these things on an elementary level, and I used it (crediting you) in my article at Ameriwiki.) So the right thing is probably to define "counting numbers", as in the web link, and accepting that that's the best you can do. Then address, very lightly, the issue of how that might be different from "natural numbers", and whether zero is included, and so on. It's not worth making a big deal about. Just pick some definitions, and stick to them. Mention that maybe not everyone agrees. Don't worry about students getting a bad grade on an exam because of a nit-picking difference--people taking exams will presumably have attended a class and gotten the instructor's view on this, if the instructor thinks it's important. The way you addressed the issue in the natural number article is just right.

Yeah, the stuff about integers being "the only integral domain whose positive elements are well ordered and in which order is preserved by addition" is over the top. Either take it out or move it to the very bottom. Other than that, I think the natural number / integer articles are in pretty good shape.

One more thing: Don't be put off by the fancy "N" symbol. The people are not trying to show off. The symbols are cool, and the students will think so. When I was in junior high, I thought that the summation and integral symbols were really cool, long before I knew what they meant. Let the students see them.

And I still say that the Peano axioms would be a good thing to have at Conservapedia. Nowhere near as complicated as "integral domain whose positive elements are well ordered", and really interesting for the target audience. You may copy my Peano article from Ameriwiki if you wish.

SamHB 23:34, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

I just wanted to add my thoughts as a math graduate student who has made several edits to our math articles. As someone who plans on becoming a professor, I think it is fundamental that, as an educational resource, Conservapedia has accessible (to the extent possible) math material. However, we are not limited in space like a print encyclopedia, so there is certainly room for us to have more in-depth coverage of math topics for more advanced scholars. It's not my intention to make Conservapedia unusable as an educational resource; if you think that my edits are not helpful, please feel free to discuss them with me. GregG 20:20, 15 March 2013 (EDT) You may have missed my point, which is that 99% of our readers are concerned with math that is below the college level. I want the majority of our editorial effort in math to focus on what these readers need. --Ed Poor Talk 12:30, 17 March 2013 (EDT)

Ed: I take exception to your implication that I "missed your point" about the intended audience of CP, or how to write for it. Be assured that I absolutely, totally, utterly, and completely understand these issues. If you have any question about this, please see my articles on Limit (mathematics), Algebra, Compass and straightedge, and Cramer's rule. These are all topics that I studied in high school, and I'm sure you did too. In particular, I put an enormous amount of work into the limit article.

In any case, this stuff is entirely in your hands now. If you have any problems with the math articles, you have the administrative power to delete any articles that you think are inappropriate, like the Kolmogorov space article. SamHB 22:57, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

Well, thanks, brother wolf, for exposing your neck so meekly. But I have no desire to be top dog, if you'll excuse me for mixing metaphors. I'm glad you understand and work hard, and I hope you will help me make high school math (and below) accessible to the average reader - not just those in the top 1% like you and me. --Ed Poor Talk 08:47, 5 April 2013 (EDT)

I must confess that I don't understand your metaphors very much -- brother wolf? exposing my neck? I'm pretty clueless about contemporary culture. But I know what "top dog" means. There's no doubt that you are a top dog, being an administrator. Also, I'm flattered to be considered in the top 1%, but, remember, there have been a lot of really sharp people here. So I'm not sure about being in the top 1%.

In any case, good luck, and have fun. And don't hesitate to delete stuff that you consider inappropriate. Really.

I'll come by and look around and say hello from time to time. SamHB 22:50, 11 April 2013 (EDT)

I have redone Brenden's edits in a number of different edits. I hope this helps you. Dvergne 07:01, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

It did. See my subsequent edits. --Ed Poor Talk 21:23, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

Hi Ed, thanks for this entry: Islam and tolerance. I followed the reference link to the news story "The Roots of Muslim rage", and read the article. I thought it was really interesting, and as I am trying to better understand their beliefs and attitude towards us, (those of Christian faith and in Western Nations) I wanted you to know this was helpful to me, thanks. Taj 18:36, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

Some of your newer articles need some categories. I don't really know much about subject matter so would probably be better if you do it. Dvergne 09:03, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

Feel free to place any category at all, when I'm too rushed to do it. --Ed Poor Talk 09:18, 16 April 2013 (EDT) Normally I would, just not to familiar with some of subject matter. Dvergne 09:22, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

I redirected your article on Christian chivalry to the already existing page Chivalry since they're the same concept and the other page was already much more in-depth. Hope that was alright. Fnarrow 11:20, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

Did you complete the merge before reducing the page to a redirect? --Ed Poor Talk 22:16, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

I'm not an admin, I don't think I can do a full merge like that... I figured since it was just a sentence and the sentiment of that sentence was already covered in the other article that the redirect would be sufficient... sorry. Fnarrow 22:26, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

If you did your best in good faith, then no apology is needed. :-) I'll take a look later on, and if I think that quote is relevant I'll tack it on to Chivalry. --Ed Poor Talk 22:28, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

As you are one of the main contributors to the Gun control page, I'm writing here to ask you to follow the link I posted in the heading of this section and read the data I found. I think it could be very helpful to the article, but as I said there I'm far from an expert in interpreting that kind of data. Thanks, Fnarrow 11:59, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

I'm interested in describing both sides in the Firearms debate. I don't think we have to overemphasize one side. Put in anything you like. --Ed Poor Talk 22:59, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

I'm just copy and pasting what he sent me, please don't shoot the messenger.

Ed Poor, I agree to your terms unequivocally and will do everything I can on the future to not allow my emotions to get the better of me in the future. That said, I just want to take a second to point out that 2 of the 6 examples you gave of my behavior, (4 and 5 I believe, i do not have the other page open as I type this email) were not posted by me but were part of a comment posted by another user in response to my comments. The other 4 I do not deny and I agree that they were out of line. To that end, I would like to point out that if you or Karajou look at the final interaction between myself and Conservative in the "why complaints will go nowhere" section of that same page, you will see that we had settled our differences peacefully. It wasn't until after that that i was banned for earlier statements made in the heat of the moment and out of exasperation regarding the situation at the time they were made. I do not contest the justice of the 1 day block, but when it was immediately followed by the infinite block before I had a chance to respond, apologize or anything else, that was when I felt I had been treated unfairly and asked my friend to join the site as a conduit for contact. (thanks again John!) While I therefore still think the infinite block was unwarranted, i do apologize for my actions and will not allow it to happen again. Thanks for your time and i look forward to helping the site grow from this point forward. --fnarrow

btw, I'm not 100# sure what a "sock" is, assure you that to my understanding of the term I am not one. I have neither the time nor the inclination to edit your wiki and only made this account at my friend's request since he had no other contact anyone here. JSandler 22:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT) Karajou said I could unblock Fnarrow. I hope this turns out okay. --Ed Poor Talk 09:29, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

Would you be able to restore Fnarrows user and talk page whilst your at it mate ? Dvergne 09:30, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

(this is fnarrow, I'm using John(jsandler)'s phone at the moment as my IP is still blocked even though my user page shows that I have been unblocked by Ed Poor... Can that be fixed?) I wanted to thank everyone for helping me understand what happened and helping me get reinstated. I look forward to working with you all more in the future. Also, as Dvergne already posted, is it possible to have my user page and talk page content restored? Most of it can be deleted now that issues have been settled, but I'd like to recover other parts. Thanks again, fnarrow 14:00, 29 April 2013 (EDT) Ed, yes I can post again, I had assumed you had unblocked me... but I guess not based upon your comment on my talk page. Anyway, can you restore the content which was deleted from my user page and talk page? I don't know how to do that... Also, since you're a very knowledgeable Conservative and I consider myself to be a fairly knowledgeable Libertarian I'd be willing to work with you on the Conservatives and libertarians page you created if you're still looking for someone to help with that project. Let me know. Thanks, Fnarrow 00:12, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

I unblocked your username. Someone else seems to have unblocked your IP address; I don't know how to do that. I'll leave your user and talk pages as C left them - ask him if he wants them undeleted. I'm just unblocking you, in light of your promise to chill out and be more focused on articles.

Please start the Conservatives and libertarians page, and I'll join in. Thanks! --Ed Poor Talk 10:41, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

I think we can do that although I am not good with wikis. From what i Understand, Libertarians are conservative when it comes to economics, gun ownership, small government, defence etc but are closer to liberals on other social issues. The way I understand it, libertarians believe the law should protect person and property, but go no further than that. I will do some research in the next few days, write a beta copy and forward to you for review/editing if thats ok Excellent, Patmac. I'll add that to the article. --Ed Poor Talk 12:22, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

The homosexuality article seems to be a bit broken. The table of contents is in the wrong position. Could you or another sysop please fix this ? Also I had an Idea re article protection. Would it be possible to protect some article so that only those users with edit and sysop rights edit them. This would allow those pages to be edited and improved by trusted and known users whilst stopping liberal trolls and thugs pushing their POV and vandalizing them. I think that something like this would help improve the quality and accuracy of the encyclopedia as it would allow for updates, improvements, tweaks and general formatting improvements to be made to our most popular articles Dvergne 10:45, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

For questions about rights (which involve software tweaks), talk to Andy. I can always unprotect an article at least temporarily. But if you want a longterm solution, I'm the wrong man to ask. --Ed Poor Talk 16:41, 4 May 2013 (EDT) You should highlight quotes by including them in apostrophes: see Help:How to Code for a simple introduction - and follow this link for an example. If you include a link to a source just by using simple square brackets (like [http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/odysseus.htm]), it appears only as a number (like [1]) in the text, similar to footnotes. But unlike those, it isn't listed in the references. To get it listed there, you have to include your link into ... - tags. (see this link for an example)

--AugustO 04:31, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

Perhaps either AugustO or Ed Poor can help me, but other than on recent wikis where the quotation mark and the italic notation can be easily confused, I have never seen italic font used as a stand-alone indication of a block quotation. I have seen italic used for titles of books or for emphasis or for foreign language words, but not as a replacement for quotation marks. Any sources for this alternative would be appreciated. Thanks, Wschact 10:56, 15 May 2013 (EDT) A very good question! Conservapedia states in its Conservapedia:Formatting conventions: Italic sections of text are usually used to portion off a portion of text, indicating it is integral to the sentence without being part of its continuation. But while wikipedia don't like when you put quotes in italics For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics. (See Quotations below.) This means that (1) a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation, and (2) italics are no substitute for proper quotation formatting. Conservapedia doesn't address the matters (as far as I could see). Instead, Conservapedia offer some templates which try to do the job.

“the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.”

~ {{{2}}} This template expects an author, so it can't be used in our special case:

“the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.”

~ John Taylor Gatto Note how the text gets italicized, and is included in quotation marks: but this template is only used eleven times on this wiki.

the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.

the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.

the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.
— John Taylor Gatto QuoteBox2 is used ten times on Conservapedia, Quotebox 422 times, Quote box only 1 time. Clearly they aren't very popular. the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family. This is the most popular version, used over 1500 times. My conclusion: The main feature of a quotation are - surprise, surprise - the quotation marks. Especially for short quotes, they shouldn't be omitted. I haven't used them regularly in the past (see the first quotations in this section), but I'll do so henceforth. Conservapedia is mute on the use of italics to mark a quote. But perhaps we should follow wikipedia's lead and just don't do so Indenting via ::: alone is not enough to mark a section as a long quote, at least

..

should be used - this indents the quote from the left and the right margin. A longer quotation should use one of the templates - best probably {{cquote}}. Any thoughts? --AugustO 11:50, 15 May 2013 (EDT) My thought is that the last time we discussed a formatting issue, I tried to throw my weight around, and it didn't end on a cheerful note. So why don't I just follow whatever you recommend? --Ed Poor Talk 21:24, 15 May 2013 (EDT) Thanks to both of you. I just want to say that I have never, ever thought of italics as conveying the limits of a quotation. I always assumed that someone had put a printout of wiki-marked up text into an OCR scanner and it just got confused between double apostrophes and a quote mark. I agree with your bottom line. Thanks Wschact 21:40, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

Hi Ed. I'd like to get your views on the discussion between another user and me that took place on my talk page. It looks as if you recently blocked him over another matter. I think he just tried to bully me for no good reason, but I'd like to hear what a senior admin thinks. Thanks for weighing in if you get the chance. DanAP 00:14, 18 May 2013 (EDT)

Ed, I believe RontheDon and Bamorris9 are parodists--Patmac 11:52, 20 May 2013 (EDT)

I started that article. It's a topic that you have, on several occasions (remember the "wff N proof" game?) expressed an interest in. I urge you to fill it out. Though I have a degree in mathematics, I do not know how to explain this topic at a high-school level, and I do not write about topics that I can't explain at a high-school level.

I also notice no activity on any "sciency" (STEM?) stuff over the last few months, from you or anyone else. Have you lost interest? I hope not. SamHB 21:00, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

Hi can you please help me to expand the article Susan E. Rice--JoeyJ 11:29, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

I dont know how to put in a Officeholder-template. Can you please do it. Here are all informations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice --JoeyJ 13:32, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

It should read Edward Snowden. That was my mistake. I might even have heard someone else mispronounce that.--TerryHTalk 10:04, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

Hi can you please uploud this picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%90.%D0%93.%D0%9B%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%88%D1%8D%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0_(%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BA%D0%B0).jpeg ? Thanks--JoeyJ 09:18, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

For the Belarus article? --Ed Poor Talk 10:13, 23 June 2013 (EDT) No for the Alexander Lukashenko-article please.--JoeyJ 10:50, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

I guess you mean this picture. --Ed Poor Talk 10:13, 24 June 2013 (EDT)

yes and please uploud a picture of Nicolas Maduro. Like this here--JoeyJ 11:25, 24 June 2013 (EDT) When will you uploud them?--JoeyJ 08:55, 3 July 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here