User talk:Schlafly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Schlafly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  — Dunc| 12:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Vandalism. You keep calling actions vandalism which do not qualify as vandalism. This violates rules on civility and personal attacks. Please stop doing this. Guettarda 05:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I call it vandalism when someone persistently removes perfectly good paragraphs without any explanation. If that person disagrees, then he can explain himself on the discussion page where the issues were being discussed. Schlafly 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? Click on the history tab -- you'll notice comments for the edits/reversions. Jim62sch 02:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not kidding. As I write this, the last 2 edits for the history of Kansas evolution hearings is:
02:58, 12 January 2006 Cyberevil m (Reverted edits by 24.225.245.81 to last version by FeloniousMonk)
02:57, 12 January 2006 24.225.245.81 (give both sides of the issue)
So someone (not me) inserted a couple of useful giving the view of the Kansas Board, and one minute later a vandal just removed it with no explanation except to revert to the last version left by one of his fellow vandals.
The next day, FeloniusMonk explained on the discussion page that the view of the chairman of the Kansas Board should be excluded because it is too similar to the much-hated Discovery Institute, and because there is already another quote from a Kansas Board member that is more easily ridiculed. I guess FeloniusMonk is conspiring with the other vandals. An article on the Kansas hearings should have the view of the Kansas board, as well as that of the critics. Schlafly 07:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
If you still think so, you may be interested in the arbitration request made by JoshuaZ [1]. --Uncle Ed 15:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Silly internet question[edit]

Are you the Roger Schlafly? Rkevins82 02:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Diff cryptanalysis discovery, rediscovery, and rerediscovery[edit]

During the development of DES at IBM (moving from the Lucifer design toward DES with some 'guidance' from NSA), members of the IBM team discovered differential cryptanalysis, asked NSA about it and were told to keep it quiet. After Biham and Shamir published it after their discovery Don Coppersmith admitted that the IBM folk had known about it, and that IBM had asked them to keep mum about it. So it should stay in cryptography as an illustration of the intellectual disorder secrecy can foster. Besides, it's amusing.

I think I can understand the reason for including Merkle and stressing that RSA was second after DH encryption/decryption, though I'm not sure I'd say it quite the way you chose too.

In addition, was it you who removed ElGamal from the mini list of signature algorithms? If so, why? ww 03:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain over on the Talk page, and maybe no one will see this. I am just trying to be factual.
I am not sure the IBM DES story is an example of intellectual disorder. I doubt that the IBM team discovered differential cryptanalysis. I am not sure IBM had to keep mum about it. I posted some messages to usenet:sci.crypt where some people may have some more info.
The case can be made that Merkle is the true inventor of public key crypto. It is odd for the discussion to not mention him at all. Some other Wikipedia pages explain his story. So I added a mention of him.
Yes, I dropped ElGamal signatures because they never caught on in the form that he published. It just isn't true that ElGamal signatures are popular. DSA signatures are similar to ElGamal. Roger 05:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Awkward welcome[edit]

Hi. Are you by any chance this Roger Schafly? Welcome!

I'm a former Wikipedia admin with nearly 5 years of contributions here. Please let me help you learn from my mistakes! :-)

If you're interested in contributing to hot controversial subjects like Intelligent Design, let me give you a few pointers.

And if I've confused you with someone else, why then, welcome anyway! ;-) --User:Ed Poor 19:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. The ID articles are hopelessly biased, and maintained by evolutionist zealots who will reverse any changes within minutes. No, I am not going to bother getting into a fight with them. An article on ID should present the ID viewpoint as might be stated by a follower of ID. Roger 22:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I suggest you read WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. The bottom line is that articles do not have to be sympathetic to what they are about. If you want that, I suggest you try Wikinfo which encourage's the writing of sympathetic articles. JoshuaZ 12:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've read those pages, and the evolutionist contributors are violating those rules. I am not looking for pro-ID articles. I am not pro-ID myself, and I would not be the best one to write such an article. I just think that an article on ID or ID movement should clearly and accurately describe the ID beliefs as professed by the ID proponents before launching into criticism.
As an example of my objections, the ID Movement article starts by implying that the Discovery Institute wants ID to be taught in public schools. When I point out that the DI explicitly denies that, the evolutionist contributor say that the DI is obviously insincere.
I don't personally know whether the DI is sincere or not, and maybe no one else knows either. But Wikipedia is not the place for anonymous contributors to express doubts about the sincerity of an ideological opponent. If there is a reliable source that documents evidence of insincerity, then perhaps that might deserve a footnote on the page describing DI.
I've run into problems before with these evolutionist contributors. In an article about the Kansas hearing, I wanted to insert the precise changes that were being made to the curriculum. The texts are all online, so there is no disputing the facts. But the evolutionist contributors would only allow paraphrased and slanted descriptions of the changes. In some cases, I would insert a brief factual item, and someone would remove it within minutes without any comment or justification. Roger 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't confuse spin with facts. The DI repeatedly said they wanted ID taught in public schools. They only changed their tune on that when Dover came around. This is well documented. Your other comments similarly lack merit. JoshuaZ 18:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Such removals of properly sourced information is against Wikipedia policy. Perhaps we can work together to ensure that the 'opposing view' gets a fair hearing. --Uncle Ed 18:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Here are the facts. Currently, the Intelligent design movement article starts by saying:
The intelligent design movement is ... Chief amongst its activities are a campaign to promote public awareness of this notion; the lobbying of policymakers to include its teaching in high schools; and legal action, either to defend such teaching or to remove barriers otherwise preventing it. ... The intelligent design movement is a product of, and continues to be driven by, the Discovery Institute,[3] a conservative Christian think tank[4].
But, as the article later concedes, the Discovery Institute is "against the teaching of intelligent design".
If there is documented evidence that the DI has changed its tune, then that evidence can be put on the Discovery institute Wiki page. But it is just not correct to say that the DI is lobbying policymakers to include teaching DI in high schools.
This is just one example of gross bias. The evolution-related articles are filled with examples like this. I understand that many evolutionists hate the DI for various reasons, but there is no excuse for misstating the DI positions when they are so easily checked by reading the DI web site. Roger 19:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
If this is your best example, the articles are in pretty good shape. "Chief amongst its activities are a campaign to promote public awareness of this notion; the lobbying of policymakers to include its teaching in high schools; and legal action, either to defend such teaching or to remove barriers" That sentence is talking about the intelligent design movement, not the DI, so your objection doesn't apply to that sentence. Next sentence "intelligent design movement is a product of, and continues to be driven by, the Discovery Institute,[3] a conservative Christian think tank" That's also true. Nowhere does it say that the DI currently pushes for it to be taught in schools (IMO, it seems clear that it does when you look at their involvement in Ohio and Kansas, but that would be original research and so the article doesn't say that. ) Your objection seems to come to down confusing the antecedents. JoshuaZ 22:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


So where is the documentation for those chief activities? The contributor pointed to the DI as the justification. If not the DI, then who is it?
There is usually no mystery about the goals of a movement. Just check their web page. There is no excuse for getting it wrong.
No, it is not my best example. It is just one of the things that is wrong with the first paragraph in one article. Very little in these articles is neutral or objective. Roger 23:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Kansas evolution hearings[edit]

You may want to read WP:3RR. JoshuaZ 18:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Block[edit]

Hi. You have been blocked from editing for having violated WP:3RR. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 23:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not violate the Three-revert rule. That rule on WP:3RR states that there is an exception for reverting potentially libellous material. It says, "All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere ..." The page on the Kansas evolution hearings called 19 witnesses "creationist" when their testimony says otherwise. For a couple of days, I challenged the contributors to document their claims, and they could not. Even after finding dozens of references, none pointed to any of those witnesses saying that they were creationists.

Perhaps some of them are creationists, I don't know, but any such claim that they are creationist should be documented. The entire testimony of the witnesses is readily available online, so there is no excuse for false or unsourced statements about their testimony.

I don't know who El_C is, except that he has a picture of the Communist Che Guevara on his Wiki web page. He did not participate in the discussion about the changes. Others made dozens of changes, and they are not blocked. I can only assume that he is making some sort of Communist statement by blocking me. Roger 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. Feel free to appeal my decision through whichever channels you see fit. El_C 02:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If you feel a block is in error, you can use the unblock template to protest it. However, I would point out that: 1) El C is a longstanding admin. 2) No edits you have done seem to be any that would incur communist reprisal. 3) If you look at the WP:3RRV report page you will see that multiple other admins agreed with the block. 4) In general, making personal attacks (such as accusing admins of making blocks based on personal ideology) are against policy and guidelines, can result in longer blocks and will at minimum not make uninvolved admins as inclined to unblock you. 5) You did not make any claim that you were removing the material due to libel concerns. 6) I and Felonious pointed you to where in the transcripts the claim was sourced and where he got his sources from. 7) In any event, it is very hard to see how a general characterization of the majority group of witnesses (without singling out any) could ever be libel, especially given that most of the witnesses are public figures. 8) Finally, nothing in the claim was defamatory or derogatory so it couldn't be libel anyways Unless you claim that claimed association with the Discovery Institute is inherently negative or that being a supporter of creationism or intelligent design is a negative thing. JoshuaZ 02:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This is worse that I thought. Some anonymous admin can block me, and I am subject to longer block if I point out that the admin has a Communist symbol on his web page?!
At no time did JoshuaZ or Felonious document that any of those witnesses were creationists. Felonious did document that some of them signed a DI petition, but that does not necessarily make them creationists.
The block was apparently at the request of FeloniousMonk, but he was the one who agreed on the discussion page that it was better to give specific citations for specific witnesses. Roger 05:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
No, making personal attacks in general can result in longer blocks. If you claimed that you had been blocked because El C was a capitalist or was neo-conservative or a classical conservative, or an anarchist, or a liberal, or whathave you the result would be the same. Furthermore, the comment about uninvolved admins was a matter of diplomatic advice: even if you are completely correct, insulting people will make bystanders less likely to take the time to see if you are correct. On a different matter, I note that you seem to have dropped the libel claim. Am I to take it that you acknowledge that the claim holds no water and that that it is a post facto justification? Also, if you want individual claims, all you need to do is take the creationist citations I already gave you in the transcripts and move those citations over to the main page. The fact that you did not do so suggests that you simply don't want the matter there and don't really care about sourcing. JoshuaZ 14:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have not dropped any claim. I removed false and unsourced derogatory info about living persons, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. For that, El_C has blocked me.
If JoshuaZ has some source to justify assertions in the Wikipedia article, then he should add them to the article. I have not seen any such sources, either privately or publicly.
I guess JoshuaZ thinks that it is insulting for me to point out that El_C has a Communist on his web page. Roger 00:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The context made it clear that you intended it as an insult and as a bad thing. Don't prevaricate. JoshuaZ 03:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I only know 2 things about El_C - that he chose to use his admin power to block me and that he has a Communist on his web page. I am not prevaricating. I do think that it was a bad thing to block me for following Wikipedia policy, and that Communism is a bad thing. I also don't agree with JoshuaZ repeatedly making false and unsourced derogatory comments about the witnesses in the Kansas article. Have I made myself clear? Roger 05:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, you're unblocked now so you don't need to keep making noise. Oh, and thanks for agreeing that you did intend the communist comment as a personal attack (since you've now explicitly said that you consider communism "a bad thing.") As for making "false and unsourced derogatory" comments, if you had been paying attention I gave you the sources well before this, but in my last edit to the page in order to make it painfully clear, I put them in by individual witness. Now, I suggest you drop this and get back to being a productive editor. (I've noticed that some of your crypto related edits are quite good). JoshuaZ 06:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You breached the three revert rule, and above, you fail to assume good faith, untopically (& crudely) polemicizing on what clearly has no bearing for this block. If you breach 3RR again, you will be blocked, again. El_C 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
El_C now refers me to a page that says that he should correct me, not scold me. I have given an explanation as to why I don't think that I have violated the rules. El_C chooses to scold me instead of addressing my explanation. Roger 19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Schlafly's bizzare explanation, wherein he states that he "can only assume [I was] making some sort of Communist statement by blocking [him]" speaks for itself. El_C 21:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Roger, there may be some pro-Evolution or anti-Creationism prejudice among a certain group of contributors; some of them are admins as well. However, they are allowed to block you for 3RR violations.

This seems unfair because:

  • many of the people who cite you for 3RR are themselves involved in an edit war with you

So the only thing you can do is

  • Carefully avoid making more than 3 reverts per 24-hour period to any article (2 is better, and 1 is ideal).
  • invite other contributors to look at edits that have been unfairly reverted.

You might ask my help, for example. You can't go it alone. --Uncle Ed 14:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No, submitting 2 reverts a day is futile. I attempted to discuss the matter on the Talk page. I thought that we reached a resolution when FeloniousMonk posted this:
"Since you insist on doing this the hard way this impasse is easily resolved; we'll simply break them all down in verifiable groups and add cites to each one establishing their orientation. The trial transcripts can serve as a source or better yet secondary sources for these are readily available."
FeloniousMonk then added some cites to document affiliations and views of each witness. That eliminated the need for the unsourced epithets. I was really surprised when FeloniousMonk submitted his 3RR complaint against me, when I had gone along with his proposed resolution.
This is part of a larger dispute that affects several of these evolution-related web pages. I think that the so-called creationists and others should be criticized for what they actually say and do, as is documented on the record. Others cling to various conspiracy theories and prefer secondary sources that vilify the people.
You are right, I cannot do it alone. But I am afraid that I have not convinced any of the other contributors to adopt a NPOV on these articles. They would rather have one-sided articles. It shows. Roger 19:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
So, when will the Schlafly-Poor Hour commence? I look forward to it. As a duo you'd be quite impressive; but can a show survive if both hosts talk out of both sides of their mouths? Should prove interesting, no? •Jim62sch• 21:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess this is some sort of ad hominem attack from Jim62sch, I'm not sure. Over on Talk:List of pseudoscientific theories he seemed surprised that I post personal opinions on my blog, but advocate neutral and objection articles in Wikipedia. Roger 21:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Nah, no PA (how could it be?), just an observation on the possibilities, noting the similarities in editing styles and apparent philosophies. I'm none too clear on your NPOV advocacy though; your edits generally seem to point toward something a bit less. Of course, this is just my opinion -- as a human I know that I cannot be totally objective in an absolutist sense. •Jim62sch• 23:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

An incidental matter.[edit]

In regard to your impression that "creationist" and "creationism" are pejoratives, you may want to note that some users are more than willing to identify as such and indeed see nothing wrong with including intelligent design and related matters as creationism. See for example the recently constructed Portal:Creationism which includes intelligent design as a relevant category. JoshuaZ 04:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, some people call themselves creationists, just as others call themselves Darwinists and evolutionists. My objection is to calling witnesses creationists, when they say that they are not creationists and they did not give creationist testimony. The purpose in using the name "creationist" appears to be pejorative (as well as being inaccurate).
Let me give you an analogy. (If you don't follow American politics, this analogy won't make any sense to you.) Suppose the Wikipedia page for Joe Liebermann called him a "Republican". Based on today's election, he apparently has plenty of political enemies who are extremely annoyed with him for supporting some policies that are identified with the Republicans. Certain leftist anti-war Democrats might well call him a Republican.
But Lieberman is not a Republican, and it would be a major error for an encyclopedia to call him a Republican. Yes, you might find bloggers who call him a Republican, but to them (and to Lieberman) the word Republican is a pejorative. Yes, there are people who are proud to be called Republican, but Lieberman is not one of them, and it would be a false pejorative to call him one. Roger 06:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You are once again missing the more basic point, the article doesn't just list "creationist" is lists creationist or anti-evolutionists. Insisting that common descent is false is anti-evolutionist period. I'm curious however, whether you think it is at all negative to have the category of intelligent design listed at Portal:Creationism when proponents of ID say that it is not creationism. By your logic that and related categories should be removed. JoshuaZ 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you miss the point. I want accuracy, not name-calling. If the witnesses opposed common descent, then just say that the witnesses opposed common descent. If Lieberman supported the war, then just say that Lieberman supported the war. Only someone with political biases would call him a Republican or an anti-Democrat.
Many or all of those witnesses supported the teaching of evolution in the Kansas standards. It is inaccurate and misleading to call them anti-evolutionists when they testified in favor of at least some aspects of evolution. To give you another analogy, should an encyclopedia say that Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is anti-Christian? No, it is much more accurate to simply say why it is contrary to the beliefs of most Christians.
I don't know about Portal:Creationism. I am not a creationist, and I don't know whether it accurately represents their beliefs. Roger 17:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, portals are subject to WP:NPOV like anything else, so if it were inaccurate to associate ID and the DI with creationism, that would presumably need to be corrected (the DI fellows are and ID are both currently listed as related). I am however having trouble understanding your claim and I strongly wonder if you have not read the actual transcripts and/or the cited sections. First, some of the witnesses (almost half) explciitly endorsed a young earth- there is no way not to call them creationists. Second, those that denied common descent didn't just deny common descent, they went through the whole rigamrole of using standard anti-evolution arguments and saying how they wanted "criticism" of evolution taught. If that isn't anti-evolutionist, I don't know what is. JoshuaZ 21:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You sound like someone from MoveOn.org trying to convince me that Lieberman is a Republican. I only read a little of the transcripts and I found plenty that I personally disagree with, but so what? Why would you prefer name-calling over describing their actual testimony? If 8 out of the 19 testified in favor of a young earth theory, then say so. Go ahead and use quotes if you want. But I think that it is very strange that you and the contributors are so adamantly insistent on name-calling, and refuse to permit the actual facts. The page is entitled Kansas evolution hearings. It should have actual facts about the hearings, not your opinion about whether the witnesses are ideological enemies. Roger 00:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
So you have no objection if we listed how many we're YEC and how many objected to common descent as the primary listing? JoshuaZ 05:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No objections. The article is about the hearings, and it should describe the testimony. If N witnesses testified in favor of YEC, then that is a useful and objective fact about the hearings. Just make sure that the count is based on actual testimony. If a witness dodged the question, then don't assume that he is lying because he if friends with someone at the DI. His testimony is his testimony.
I really think that it is odd that you and the other contributors are so resistant to sticking to actual facts. The witnesses were cross-examined in an attempt to expose YEC and other goofy beliefs. Surely there is sufficient evidence there to make whatever point you want to make. There is no need to go to secondary sources as justifications for name-calling. Roger 06:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I defy you identify people who call themselves Darwinists or evolutionists. Those terms are entirely pejorative; they were invented by creationists like yourself to convey the false impression that evolution is a religious belief. 71.203.209.0 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
That's easy. The most famous one alive, Richard Dawkins, happily calls himself a Darwinist or evolutionist. A simple search turned up this interview [[2]] where Dawkins speaks of Darwinism and evolutionism in positive terms.
It is just not true that the terms Darwinist and evolutionist were invented by the modern creationist movement. The terms have been widely accepted for over 100 years. You can even find it here [[3]] in the 1913 Webster's dictionary.
Finally, I am not a creationist. So you are wrong on all counts, whoever you are. Roger 06:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2[edit]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 13:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what this Ed Poor case is all about. Most of the accusations against him have no substance at all. People complain about fairly innocuous comments or edits. His worst offense appears to be trying to add some balance to some evolution-related WP pages. Apparently there are a bunch of WP editors who really hate the creationists, and cannot stand creationist views being in WP, even if the WP article explains that the creationists are wrong. Putting Ed Poor on probation is just a sign of narrow-minded evolutionist intolerance on the part of those making the accusations at the above links. Roger 05:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
One of the criticisms of Ed Poor was that he made a comment favorable to my side in a discussion! Then the critic

says,Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2/Evidence#Disruption_of_adminstrative_actvities.2C_and_use_of_noticeboards_for_harrasement "In a surprisingly similar fashion, Ed then proceeds to warn a new user that the evil evolutionist cabal is attempting to get the user to violate 3RR".

The offense was where Ed Poor said:[[4]]
When they won't discuss their reverts
Hi, sorry to barge in. But you have to watch out for the 3-revert rule.
You said, "If discussion does not resume above, I'm going to keep reverting." Please make sure you don't revert any article more than 3 times in any one 24-hour period, or the FeloniousMonk clique will report you for a 3RR violation and get you blocked from editing! :-(
I've seen them do this to several contributors who are "new" to the Evolution-related articles. --Uncle Ed 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that Ed Poor was trying to offer helpful advice. I was probably one of those new contributors to the Evolution-related articles. The FeloniousMonk clique did indeed try to bait me into violating the 3-revert rule. The way they do it is to take turns doing reverts, and avoid the discussion on the Talk page. When the new contributor finds that his Talk page arguments are unrebutted, he naively thinks that he can make the change. Instead, the FeloniousMonk clique is just sitting back hoping to report a 3-revert violation. It is very strange that Ed Poor would be criticized, and placed on probation, for trying to alert someone to a possible WP rules violation, so he can better follow the rules. Roger 05:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for 24 hours for time to think over and re-read WP:AUTO and your argumentative, accusatory attitude. Whitewashing your mother's article, removing well sourced relevant content, is a violation of AUTO, and accusing an editor who reverts your biased edits a "vandal" is not only uncivil, it is clear you are turning this into a fight on the playground.[5] Take this time to think about how to constructively and maturely work with others. See Wp:vand#What_vandalism_is_not, and cease calling those with whom you disagree "vandals." You have been disruptive and clearly are here to promote an agenda and a point of view, and frankly, Wikipedia is not your personal website or blog to promote your soapbox. If you cannot be civil and practice neutrality, writing for the enemy, etc. then you need to go elsewhere. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I followed that WP:AUTO policy. I did not write an article about myself, or my mom. The AUTO policy says: "it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; ... you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself".
I simply removed some false and biased statements about my mom. I also started a discussion on the Talk page, in case anyone disagreed with me. No one disagreed, but FeloniousMonk kept re-inserting the false statements anyway. His only excuse was to say that I should not be editing the page. It is unclear whether he thinks that the statements are true or false.
Yes, I do think that it is vandalism for FeloniousMonk to repeatedly insert false statements into a WP page when (1) he appears to know nothing about the subject matter, (2) he refuses to engage in the discussion on the Talk page, and (3) he is motivated purely by some personal issue with me.
If there is some WP policy against me identifying myself and correcting errors on my mom's biography page, then show me the policy. If there is such a policy, then I'll ask someone else to make the changes anonymously. Roger 04:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Asking someone else to do it for you won't work, particularly since the statements cite a source. The best way to go about it is to use the talk page to outline exactly what you think is wrong, and to explain why the sources cited are not adequate -- see Talk:Phyllis_Schlafly#Request_for_Roger_Schlafly. (Acts on Wikipedia are normally not termed "vandalism" if they are done with the intent to improve the encyclopedia.) — Matt Crypto 08:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not believe that FeloniousMonk intends to improve the encyclopedia. I have seen too many bogus edits by him, and too many bad faith actions. If there is some rule against someone else anonymously editing the page to correct the errors, then please tell me what it is. Roger 19:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If an anonymous user starts removing sourced material without explanation, he'll be reverted. The way forward is to provide an explanation, not to enlist meat puppets to edit war on your behalf. — Matt Crypto 19:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Matt Crypto has injected himself into this dispute, I will describe a dispute I had with him on a related matter. On the Cryptography page, he insisted on saying that IBM independently invented differential cryptanalysis during the development of DES in the 1970s. (You don't need to understand these terms to understand what I say here.) I believed the statement to be false, and not sufficiently important for the article anyway. If the statement is to be included, I thought that it ought to be attributed to its source, and that the article should also say that IBM never claimed credit for inventing differential cryptanalysis. IBM published an article on DES in the 1990s claiming credit for all sorts of things related to the development of DES, but conspicously avoided claiming credit for inventing differential cryptanalysis.

Matt cited a book by Levy as his source, but that book only cited that same IBM article that does not corroborate what Levy says. He was adamant that because Levy's book meets the minimum WP requirements for being a reliable source, then a statement in it could be cited as fact and that contrary info from other sources could be excluded.

The similarity to this situation is that Matt is apparently again supporting inclusion of false statements that he knows nothing about, just because they can be found in one particular polemical book. I do not agree. Many books have errors. Roger 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Matt is apparently again supporting inclusion of false statements" -- actually, I oppose the removal of statements which cite reliable sources. The onus is on you to show why the source is inadequate. Until you do so, then the statements will remain. — Matt Crypto 19:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Matt, it is just not true that you oppose the removal of statements which cite reliable sources. On the Cryptography page, you kept removing my statement that cited Coppersmith. Here is one of your changes. [[6]]
The point here is that you favor the retention of statements that cite sources, even if the statements are probably false. You have essentially confirmed that in your comments here. No encyclopedia could be reliable if more editors had that attitude and that disregard for truth. Roger 05:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You appear to confuse "what Roger Schlafly understands to be true" with "truth". This is the second instance that I've seen you demand that sourced statements be removed or called into doubt based solely on your say so. It's not how we work. — Matt Crypto 08:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No, wrong again. I proposed that the IBM differential analysis claim be removed because it was not sufficiently important or relevant to the article and because it was contradicted by several other sources. Alternatively, I proposed mentioning what the primary source says. Matt was adamant that one secondary source be use, and the primary source to be omitted. Roger 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't help but smile at your account Roger ("contradicted by several other sources" *chuckle*), but nonetheless, that issue is resolved. I suggest you take the advice given to you regarding the article on your mother. — Matt Crypto 17:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly[edit]

Regarding your mother's article (which you've been apparently disrupting now for at least a week), there is no valid NPOV concern there, the content is properly attributed and sourced, as many there agree. Meaning this is clearly a misuse of the POV tag to gain some leverage in a contrived content dispute. Please stop disrupting this article and find a way to contribute to the project constructively and quietly. FeloniousMonk 18:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, these are the two sentences involved. User:FeloniousMonk argues that they could not cause any valid point-of-view concern.
Early on, Schlafly was aquainted with the far right and male unreliability when the Depression threw her father into long-term unemployment and her mother, entering the labor market, was able to keep the family afloat, including maintaining Schlafly in an elite Catholic girls' school that stressed Christian anti-Communism (Ehrenreich 152-153).
Sheltered by her husband Fred Schlafly's ample income and assisted by a part-time housekeeper, the woman who would insist that "she had no intention of following in her mother's footsteps and becoming -- even voluntarily -- a career woman" (Ehrenreich 153) ironically developed a new career as a one-woman propagandist for the far-right, consequently making it more difficult for any women to forge a career in the paid labor force (Ehrenreich 153).
I say that these statements are false, biased, and contrary to WP policy. I initiated a discussion about them on Talk:Phyllis Schlafly, and no one there defends the accuracy of those statements. Roger 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
And as I have repeatedly asked, please provide some support for the assertion that these statements are false. Guettarda 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you want, an example of a woman whose career was not hampered by Phyllis Schlafly? Roger 06:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Does such a woman exist? 24.14.72.223 (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Selman v. Cobb County[edit]

Schlafly,

You may not be aware of this because the Discovery Institute's Media Complaints Division is being surprisingly quiet on the matter, but...

Selman v. Cobb County has been settled out of court.

Not a surprise of course, though your pathetic attempt to cling to the smallest of victories has been shown up?

Happy Christmas. The King of Spain's beard 14:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You are referring to a WP page that I correctly updated about 3 months ago. It should be updated again with yesterday's settlement. I don't know why you say that it is "pathetic" to update a web page with current facts. Merry Christmas to you too. Roger 19:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Grand Canyon: A Different View[edit]

You added a sentence to this article stating that the book was not for sale on the Grand Canyon bookstore's website. I just thought you might want to know that you were wrong. I removed the false statement. You should be more careful about original research in the future. Eliot 20:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, but why didn't you leave in the link to the web site where it is offered for sale? Roger 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Intelligent design movement[edit]

What is the relation? Are you trying to say that evolutionism is a cult? Roger 05:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to add to the excessive name-calling that is already in the article, then I'd suggest links to schizophrenia, stupidity, fraud, mysticism, and kooky ideas. Roger 01:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


If you want to rant about WP's ID articles, your blog is a better place for doing that. FeloniousMonk 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is some more evolutionist censorship in action. Someone asked on Talk:Intelligent design movement for comments on calling the ID movement a "cult". I think that is just frivolous name-calling.
FeloniousMonk apparently has the mission of preventing WP ID articles from actually describing ID in a NPOV manner, and uses name-calling in the WP articles whenever possible. Roger 03:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You might have gotten more comments here, but an evolutionist censor removes comments that he does not like. Roger 09:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk is the evolutionist censor, and he has done it again. He has excluded the views with which he disagrees from appearing in response to a "Straw Poll" on a discussion page. Roger 21:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work Roger. Steve Dufour 00:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "gang of evolutionists"[edit]

Regarding [7]- once again, please remember to avoid personal attacks and try to stay civil. JoshuaZ 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, you were a part of that gang, and I happened to believe that your attacks on Ed Poor had no merit. Ed has had many useful contributions, and has tried to bring some balance to the evolution-related articles. I am staying civil. Roger 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, someone asks you not to refer to "gangs" per Wikipedia policy and your repsonse is to inform the person that they are part of the "gang." Do you have any respect for policy at all? (Also, if you mean the RfAr, apparently the ArbCom disagreed with you, and I would tentatively suggest that maybe just maybe the ArbCom has a better grasp of Wikipedia policy than you do). JoshuaZ 23:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Joshua, you are part of that gang, and it was not against WP policy for me to say so. And you just reverted my edits and reinserted personal attacks on Jonathan Wells with no explanation other than that to pursue your evolutionist agenda. You should read that WP policy yourself. Roger 00:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

About the hostility and other issues[edit]

Roger, your recent personal attacks at Talk:Jonathan Corrigan Wells and the attack campaign against me and other editors here you are running from your blog all point to a serious problem with your method of participation at Wikipedia. Personal attacks made on Wikipedia are prohibited by the WP:NPA policy. Personal attacks made off Wikipedia, such as at your blog, can not be regulated by the WP:NPA policy, but can be used as evidence when on-wiki policy violations are considered in the course of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes described at WP:DR.

Furthermore, each of your objections over content, both recent and in the past, show a clear lack of understanding of, or willingness to follow, our core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Each of your objections has either flown in the face of these policies or has has proved to be baseless when viewed in light of them.

Unless you demonstrate an understanding and acknowledgement of these policies, you cannot reasonably expect others to not view you as anything but a disruptive crank given your willingness ignore policy while engaging in flagrant personal attacks.

Clearly a change in your methods and behavior with a shift to contributing positively is called for. The only question that remains is will you make that change of your own accord, or will you continue as you have and force the community to take action? FeloniousMonk 17:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think you're helping yourself with this response [8]? I'm sorry to see that you are more interested in are in fanning the flames and continuing your attacks than you are in learning and abiding by our policies and contributing positively here. FeloniousMonk 19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What personal attacks? I am just stating the facts here on Wikipedia, and on my blog. [9]
I did you the courtesy of quoting your position. If anything is inaccurate, then please let me know and I will correct it. Roger 20:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • For values of "stating the facts" which clearly include attacking a Wikipedia editor in a venue outside Wikipedia. For this, we usually ban people. Attacking others makes it impossible to get on with the job of building an encyclopaedia, working with those whose views we disagree with as well as those we agree with. Describing other editors as "evolutionist zealots" as you have in the past is also profoundly unhelpful. Please stop this aggressive posturing. It is a provable fact that the dominant western holds creationists to be wrong and evolutionists right. Wikipedia reflects what goes on in the real world. Wikipedia is not the place to fix "problems" with the real world, especially where those problems are not seen as problems except by a minority who dislike them. Wikipedia is not the place to make people with extreme views look less extreme. Wikipedia is not the place to bolster the reputations of people who reject the scientific consensus. And Wikipedia is most especially not the place to pretend that the scientific consensus is no, in fact, the scientific consensus. In short, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your arguments have al the hallmarks of tendentious editing, a practice which tends to engender impatience and rapid corrective action around here. Now would be a great time to tone down the rhetoric, here and outside, and try to work with those whose views you do not like, because that is the way we work. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, one more thing: we are not a gang, we are a cabal. Get your Wiki terminology right :-) Guy (Help!) 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Roger[edit]

Thanks for trying to help. I'm going to back off a little. I see that certain people don't trust readers to make up their own minds and think that they have to tell them what to think. There is nothing I can do to change that. I am trying to improve the English of the article a little anyway. Steve Dufour 21:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I may be backing off also, as it appears that FeloniousMonk and his buddies may attempt to ban me for trying to bring some balance to the J. Wells biography. Did you notice that FeloniousMonk has changed the article again with the latest piece of dirt he found on Wells? He discovered that "the leading AIDS denial proponent and Wells share the same publisher, Regnery Press"! [10] Roger 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits Talk:Jonathan Corrigan Wells[edit]

In the last few hours, multiple people have emailed me asking me, as an uninvolved administrator familiar with the topics you edit, to look into your editing. I have noticed several things.

  • First, as to your repeated use of the word "Darwinism" with respect to Evolution, please see Darwinism#Other Usages of the Term. Specifically: "...Modern creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively. Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools. However Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin." Thus, while you are correct in your statement that Darwinism a term used by the scientific community (specifically to distinguish Darwin's ideas from the later modern synthesis theory of evolution):
  1. It is not used by scientists in the same sense you are using it, and
  2. FeloniousMonk is correct when he tells you that repeatedly changing the word Evolution in articles to the pejorative term used by creationists is biased writing, and against Wikipedia policies.
  • Second, you have repeatedly made the claim that FM's edits to the article are libelous. However, I cannot find a single fact in there not backed up by citations (typically multiple citations). However, several of your edits (such as this one - "He also rejects the prevailing view of the scientific community that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the sole cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." -> "He also proposed a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against the hypothesis") appear to be obvious whitewashing - changing the language in the to downplay his eccentric views, and make them seem less at odds with the scientific world than they really are. And FM is correct in that the sources cited describing him as an AIDS denialist - Seattelfest, the Vancouver Sun, and the WUSTL Law Review - are reliable sources.
  • Lastly, and most seriously, is the use of your blog to make personal attacks on the people with whom you are having a disagreement with on-wiki. This is patently unacceptable. It is a violation of our No-personal-attacks policy. Other people have been blocked for doing it. If you wish to continue to participate on Wikipedia, you must immediately cease. Raul654 22:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Your first two points do not address my actual comments. I suggest that you post your opinions to the Talk:Jonathan Corrigan Wells page if you want to be involved in the discussion.
As for you last and most serious point, could you please explain precisely what comments on my blog violate what WP policy? I always thought that WP was an open process, and that comments outside WP are welcomed. Roger 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


The first point is in reponse to your comment here, wherein you state that "Darwinism" is used by the scientific community. The second point goes to the heart of the matter, wherein you continue to edit the article in ways that do not conform to our neutrality policy.

Now, to address your specific questions, the unacceptable comments in your blog include (but are not limited to):

  • "Apparently FeloniousMonk believes that it is pseudoscience to reappraise the evidence."
  • "This is part of FeloniousMonk's character assassination on J. Wells."
  • "FeloniousMonk cannot tolerate anyone who criticizes leftist-atheist-evolutionist conventional wisdom"

And the relevant policy is:

"Wikipedia acknowledges that it cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks elsewhere may create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are being conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the entire community, and to an editor's relationship with it. While an editor may not be directly penalized for off-wiki attacks, such attacks may be taken as aggravating factors when any on-wiki policy violations are being considered. For example, they can be used as evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including in Arbitration cases." -- Wikipedia:No personal attacks

In this case, the on-wiki policy violations aggrevated by your off-wiki comments would be repeated, egregious violations of our neutrality policy (to the point where it appears you have a single purpose account). Raul654 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

First you tell me that I must stop commenting on my blog, and that others have been blocked it. Then you quote a WP policy saying "an editor may not be directly penalized for off-wiki attacks". Which is it? Both, I guess. WP admins violate their own rules when they penalize people, I guess.
Yes, I did say that "Darwinism" is used by the scientific community, and I gave a source to prove it. Maybe you are just agreeing with me, I'm not sure.
I don't know why you say that it is unacceptable to say, "Apparently FeloniousMonk believes that it is pseudoscience to reappraise the evidence." Isn't that his position? Hasn't he made edits to the J.Wells biography in order to push that POV? If that is not his position, then what is?
All I am doing here is throwing a little light on how some of these WP evolution-related articles are edited. You appear to be just trying to whitewash what FeloniousMonk and others are doing. There is no WP policy against me explaining some WP edits. Roger 00:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I fully support Raul654's above comment. It is impossible to expect editors to have good relations with each other on wiki if some of them are going off wiki and making highly derogatory comments.
  • I also share Raul's concern about your use of pov terms in an attempt change the meaning of the article. Our policies are clear that while all points of view are expected to be acknowledged, the mainstream science point of view should be given prominence in articles over minority positions. For Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information we must monitor this and insist that editors conform to this policy.
  • Please consider this a formal warning and expect action to be taken against your editing privileges if you continue to ignore these policies. FloNight 00:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
"First you tell me that I must stop commenting on my blog, and that others have been blocked it." I stated that you must stop making personal attacks on your blog, and that others had been blocked for making them. You are free to comment as much as you want, as long as they do not contain personal attacks.
"Then you quote a WP policy saying "an editor may not be directly penalized for off-wiki attacks". Note the word "directly". Also note the following clause in that sentence, which you have conveniently omitted: ...such attacks may be taken as aggravating factors when any on-wiki policy violations are being considered."
"WP admins violate their own rules when they penalize people, I guess." Incorrect. See above.
As to what FeloniousMonk believes, I'm not psychic, and neither are you. However, his edits conform to our polices and accurately reflect the reliable sources he has provided. Yours do not. Raul654 00:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Roger, what you are doing is called wikilawyering. You have been told there is a problem. Please fix the problem. That means (a) don't attack other editors on or off Wikipedia and (b) don't disrupt Wikipedia by using the project as a soapbox; conform to our NPOV rules not, as you have been, MPOV, which is very different. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am persuaded that FeloniousMonk's edits conform to the policies of himself and a few of his friends. Others have informed me that his edits do not conform to WP policies. For now, I'll assume that the WP policies are still those that are stated on appropriate WP pages, and that I am following them. Roger 15:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought[edit]

If Wikipedia had been around when Hitler was just starting out he might have spent all his time here rather than doing the bad things he did. I always like to look on the bright side. Cheers. Steve Dufour 04:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours[edit]

Since you have chosen to disregard the multitude of warnings above, I have blocked you for 24 hours for continuing to make personal attacks Raul654 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that the personal attacks on me have continued, and that I am blocked from responding. Roger 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am still blocked. I see that there are others who have tagged the Jonathan Corrigan Wells article as "Unbalanced -- article is almost entirely from the perspective of critics". Others have removed the tag. I agree that the article should be tagged. It is very unbalanced. Roger 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can and paste the exact error message you're getting about the block, someone can fix it for you. Friday (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The message is:
Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Raul654 for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Schlafly". The reason given for Schlafly's block is: "Was warned about personal attacks, didn't take message - "I don't know why Guerttarda and the others Your IP address is ...

The page has a description for undoing an auto-block that was intended for someone else, but the auto-block is directed at me. Roger 22:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have undone the autoblock. If you're still getting an error, let us know. Friday (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA[edit]

I'd appreciate it if you retracted your attack claiming I'm libeling Wells: [11] FeloniousMonk 00:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I should have said "potentially libelous" or something like that. Do you know for a fact that Wells lied? If not, WP could be accused of willfully or recklessly inserting false statements into Wells's biography for the purpose of damaging his reputation. I really cannot see any justification for inserting a statement into Wells's biography that some debate opponent said that Wells lied. Roger 01:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude[edit]

Your recent edit in Conservapedia is just useless. To quote somebody, you run a close race with Andrew Schlafly. | DUKEREDFREE SPEECH 01:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My last Conservapedia edit was a couple of weeks ago. If you can improve it, go ahead. Or you can explain on the appropriate Talk page. Roger 16:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about the Steinem citation. Useless. DUKEREDFREE SPEECH 17:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't put in the Steinem citation. I merely put in the actual quote. Roger 00:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning: COI[edit]

Information.svg If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Phyllis Schlafly, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Flor Silvestre (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI[edit]

Information.svg If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. FeloniousMonk (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Eagle Forum[edit]

Hi Roger. Regarding this edit. This is hardly the first time you've made this exact same change, and I am asking you nicely to stop. I have no intention of requesting any action against you, and I have no dog in this fight. I am only trying to find a compromise version that adheres to WP:RS and WP:UNDUE etc. I have already edited the text with the purpose of saying only what the sources say. You are right that none of them directly call EF Dominionist, but the text doesn't say that they do, so your addition is not germane. How can we move this discussion forward, rather than doing the same things over and over?

If you are worried about balance here, you might consider finding some reliable sources that praise EF, or perhaps some that criticize TheocracyWatch. It seems to me that turnabout is fair play. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who removed a correct statement. If you want to justify that removal, then I suggest using the Talk page for Eagle Forum. Roger (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT / WP:DE Warning[edit]

[12] Please read and abide by WP:POINT and WP:DE. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI, edit warring warning[edit]

You've been previously warned about violating WP:COI and edit warring, yet I see you've returned to your old habit of whitewashing your mother's article and edit warring when it doesn't stick. If you continue this, you will be blocked from editing and I'll personally make a case for either a topic ban or an indefinate site ban of you with the community. Please consider carefully your next steps. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not violated any WP policy, as far as I know. I think that you have a conflict of interest in making this case. Roger (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Then please, by all means, continue as you have been. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also urge that Roger not edit war, but rather enters into discussion on the Talk page or elsewhere. A conflict of interest is clear. — Matt Crypto 07:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you actually disagree with some edit? If so, why? Roger (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I've already commented on Talk:Phyllis Schlafly. — Matt Crypto 16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

You've been temporarily blocked for ignoring warnings about edit warring and violating WP:COI. Please use the time off to contemplate your method of contributing to the project and how you can improve both. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you've ignored the warnings and started right back up edit warring when your block expired, I've reinstated it and extended it another 24 hrs. Again, please use the time to reconsider your method of contributing, the path you are on leads nowhere. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not ignore it. I checked the WP policy, and determined that I was not violating it. The insertion of false and unsubstantiated allegations was done by others. Roger (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Having a conflict of interest is not an issue. Edit warring with a COI is. I would advice you to seek help from others if you see anything that needs attention, by posting a request at WP:BLP/N, and to discuss your concerns with other editors in talk page. Failure to do so may result in escalating blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who was edit warring. WP policy is to remove unsourced criticisms like the one at issue, whether I have a conflict of interest or not. I was following policy. Those who reverted my edits were not. I am happy to discuss the matter on the Talk page, but I am currently blocked. Roger (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger, you're at it again. You know you have a COI. Go edit your blog. Or go try to talk sense into your brother; he's making a spectacle of himself over the recent report from Lenski. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am following WP policy. Get over it. Roger (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

Is "Schlafly" pronounced with a "Sh" or a "Sk" ? DS (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

With an "Sh". Both ells are also pronounced. Roger (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly?[edit]

You're the one who started Conservapedia aren't you? Yes you are. Well, I would just like to say something, how could you possibly accuse Wikipedia of being biased, because frankly, Conservapedia is the largest heap of stinking bias and logical fallacy I've ever read. (the trustworthy encyclopedia, right...) Oh and another thing here you won't get banned for 5 years to eternity for speaking your opinion.--206.28.43.139 (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, my brother Andy started Conservapedia. I have no control over the editorial policies. If you just want to post anonymous opinions about what stinks, there are other sites on the net that are more suitable for that. Roger (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For once, a helpful hand[edit]

Hey Roger, my name is Sam. I was reading about Criticism of Wikipedia (mainly about liberal bias), which led me to the page on Conservapedia, which led me to the page about your changes to the Kansas Evolutionary Hearings. I spent a good 30 minutes reading about your changes, and people's responses. Just wanted to say, I agree with you 100%. I see how you were trying to present two sides to a story, but everybody kept deleting it and how people were blatantly going against NPOV. With all the negative attention your talk page has, just thought you should hear that not everybody is as stubborn and biased as the typical Wikipedia editor. I used to edit myself (mainly sports related articles), but got fed up with bias to the point where I just quit. Reading about situations like yours just reminds me why I left Wikipedia and think it's the most unrelaible source of information on the planet. Hell my political affiliation is liberal and atheist, but I still agree with you on the liberal bias 100%. Just wanted to say your not alone. Supergoalie1617 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I found that trying to edit that page was very frustrating. It ought to be very easy to describe those hearings with a NPOV. After all, both sides were pushing particular texts, and those proposals were on the net. But those evolution-related pages are dominated by folks who have a particular POV about how evolution ought to be taught in the schools. Roger (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the deal.[edit]

Ok, so here's the deal, I think (ad hominem attack deleted) Crash Underride

If you have an issue with my brother, then I suggest that you take it up with him. As for my edits on the Kansas article, I just wanted to accurately reflect the hearings. If you want to raise a specific issue, then go ahead, but please do not use my Talk page for name-calling. Roger (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm just stating facts, (ad hominem attack deleted) Crash Underride

RfC[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Disparging APA code of ethics[edit]

Even though I share your point of view that Rorschach test images should be published on Wikipedia, I don't approve of your pretty gratuitous disparging of psychologists' codes of ethics and unfounded and irrelevant accusations of doing things only to protect their income. I would not defend you in any action that might be taken against you because of your (in my opinion, insulting) statements. --LjL (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have some evidence opposing something that I have said, go ahead and post it. Your comments have not been helpful. Roger (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Rorschach test. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --LjL (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Modern Geocentrism[edit]

Mr Roger Schlafly

I have great respect for your programming skills as well as your beliefs. I know you are trying to do apologetics work. I pains me to disagree. That is why I took so long to answer on the other page and why I wish to continue here. Please forgive my formality, it is an attempt to show respect. (If you wish to discuss apologetics alternatives and share ideas then write to me on gmail.)

I was not asking for modern geocentrism to explain modern physics. I am asking for it not to inappropriately use the principles of modern physics to either complicate or obfuscate how it works in practice. I also find it quite deceptive as written on the Tychonic system article page. I will look here for any answer you might have. --Dgroseth (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is reasonable for the article to have a sentence or two on how the Tychonic system relates to modern physics. But if you have a proposal, then go ahead and suggest it on the Talk page. Roger (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Poincaré or Einstein?[edit]

Hallo, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Poincare better than Einstein edits by Schlafly?. Regards, --D.H (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me that people are making personal attacks on me in inappropriate places. No thanks for reverting my edits without explanation. Roger (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so I suggest that we discuss this issue at Talk:History of special relativity#Local time... --D.H (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


AfD nomination of Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

David Berlinski[edit]

Hi Roger,

In case you missed it:

Moulton (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I missed that. FeloniousMonk has gotten me banned from WP before because I objected to some of his guilt-by-association tactics. He is always pushing his twisted point of view.
I see that the lead paragraph tries to associate Berlinski with ID and says what he "refuses to theorize" about. No neutral encyclopedia would have an opening paragraph like that. Nor would it have a criticism section comparing him to an AIDS denialist. Roger (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I did not know any of that. ArbCom has more sense than I thought. You would think that if he doesn't like Berlinski's opinions, then that would be all the more reason to portray those opinions accurately on WP, so that the faulty views can be documented. But FeloniousMonk does not view it that way. Roger (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Roger, care to do something about this? —Moulton (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I have given up on those jokers. They have no sense of fairness when it comes to anyone who is not an evolution true believer. Roger (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Or you could, you know, help out in expanding the article. It needs a lot more about his books obviously. Note that removal of comments by Moulton is per policy for banned users. Also, note that working with such users may constitute helping them evade a ban. (incidentally I do think that Berlinski's on ID are probably more complicated than the page has them. But it is hard to see how to have a detailed version of them without heavy OR.) Finally, a bit of AGF and avoidance of personal attacks about other users would be nice. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I really don't see how Moulton being banned justifies promoting false info about Berlinski. If you had any sense of fairness, then you would put his comments back. How did he put them there, if he was banned? Was he banned for telling the truth? I am not interested in expanding such a one-sided article. Roger (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It comes down to accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online media. That's the issue I raised 3 1/2 years ago, when FeloniousMonk was still ensconced in power and IDCab still held sway. Here is what I just posted on WP:BLP/N:

[redacted outing Rd232 talk 19:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)  ]

I expect Joshua Z will balete it, to continue their shameful cover-up.

This is strange. I tried to determine whether Moulton was really banned from WP. From what I have just learned, he got an indefinite ban in 2007. From what I can see, the chief reasons were: (1) he is alleged to favor intelligent design but he repeatedly denies it, (2) he insisted on removing false and derogatory info from biographies of living persons, and (3) he has commented on WP edit issues on non-WP sites. I do not know whether the ban is still in effect, but it appears to me that he is just being silenced for expressing some legitimate views. Roger (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond to this when I have time. In the meantime the fact that Moulton is continuing on this very page to out editors who are anonymous while making his conspiratorial rants should make you understand that your perspective on what happened is wrong. (I've deleted removed their names from this page. Please don't restore them). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason that you are protecting their identities? These are people who go out of their way to post false and malicious info about living persons. They attack him under his real name. Why shouldn't he respond to them with their real names? The only conspiracy I see that he talks about is this.[13], where various WP editors have identified themselves as having a joint intelligent design trashing project. Roger (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Kindly read WP:OUTING, and then WP:AGF and WP:NPA. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
FYI, now relevant ANI section JoshuaZ (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you have outted him, assumed bad faith, and made personal attacks. And your justification on ANI is "multiple admins just removed those difs, deleted them, and then blocked the IP address, this seems pretty clear cut". And you have arranged for some archives of this page to be deleted from public view. You sound like you are trying to confirm his conspiracy rant. Go ahead and post what the purpose of all this is. Is it so that you and the others can portray Berlinski as an ID promoter? Is it to punish Moulton's colleague for having once signed a petition that expressed some skepticism on a favorite issue? Roger (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Reread WP:OUTING. Edits removed here were removed by an admin I've never even talked to before. The reason for that was simply following WP:OUTING. This really doesn't involve any complicated conspiracy. (And what gave you the idea you have that anyone here outed Moultlon is beyond me; he's always been very open about who he is.) The notion that I want to "punish" him is similarly so ridiculous that it isn't even worth discussing. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, it appears to me that the admin removed the edits as a direct requestresponse to your request that you posted here. ANI section I guess that is the best explanation that I am going to get from you. Roger (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You really seem to see conspiracies everywhere. Apparently now posting a comment on a public noticeboard for dealing with situations is evidence of what exactly? Some deep conspiracy to do what? Publicly remove edits which violate long-standing Wikipedia policy? Ok... JoshuaZ (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"it appears to me that" - why? I specifically said at ANI that I acted because of BLPN popping up on my watchlist (JoshuaZ's removal of outing info). I didn't see the ANI section til I came here as part of my investigation. Rd232 talk 09:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
So Rd232 acted as a direct response to JoshuaZ's request on ANI. You are not refuting anything I said. Roger (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Suggest you reread what Rd said, especially the part about "acted because of BLPN popping up on my watchlist". JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I read it. I am not doubting that Rd232 watches the BLPN page. I also read your explanation of why you are on the warpath against Moulton. It seems to me that he has made some good points. Roger (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
So you agree that when you said that Rd acted due to my request on ANI you were wrong? Glad we have that established. As to being on a "warpath"- I'm on nothing of the sort and don't even know what that would entail. Enforcing basic policy in WP:OUTING/WP:BAN is not being on a warpath. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I do not agree that I was wrong. You (JoshuaZ) and Rd232 do not even deny it. You wrote a request. Rd232 read the the request and acted on it. You both have essentially admitted as much. And I never heard of Moulton until a few days ago, and it sure appears to me that you are on the warpath against him because of some disagreements about some BLP issues. Roger (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Roger, I know you're a bright individual so maybe you should be able to understand this: Rd saw a comment I made on the BLP page that I was redacting outings. He didn't respond to any request. The only request made was on ANI. If you can't even get this basic aspect right, what makes you think that you have any idea why I responded to Moulton? (Incidentally, have you actually read WP:OUTING yet? Because it sure seems like you haven't). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, you are insulting. Rd232 did not deny anything I said. Now you are pretending to know that "He didn't respond to any request." How would you know? I do believe that I have an idea about why you are on the warpath against Moulton, but I wanted to give you a chance to explain yourself. Roger (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Um, Roger, you seem to be looking for some kind of inter-textual weaselling in my words. You want it unmisunderstandably clear? OK, I received no request. Not from JoshuaZ, not from anyone. I acted solely because of seeing JoshuaZ's edit at BLPN, which brought the whole mess to my attention for the first time. And as I already said, at the time I acted I wasn't aware of the ANI thread, which I only found a reference to from your user talk page. Now, can we get back to the actual content issues? Rd232 talk 02:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Rd232, all I said that it appeared that you acted in response to JoshuaZ's ANI message. If you say that it was solely in response to his BLPN message, then I will take your word for it. Roger (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

For the content issues, I thought that Moulton made some good points about certain BLP articles associating the subjects with views that they do not hold. His comments were removed. Apparently JoshuaZ and others don't like him because of comments that he has posted on non-WP sites. I am not sure what that is all about, but I do not see how it is relevant. WP articles about people should stick to the facts, and not be filled with ill-informed criticisms from supposedly reliable sources. I think that Moulton is on the side of accuracy and fairness here. Roger (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your Islamic edit to List of common misconceptions[edit]

Please try to avoid making undiscussed edits that you can reasonably expect to be labeled as Islamic by a majority of other editors, as you did here. Thank you. Hans Adler 19:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My edit was not Islamic. I just described what the Wash. Post source article said about the poll. Roger (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I had just learned how Americans express disapproval, but apparently there are nuances that I am not getting right yet. Let me rephrase it: I disapprove of that edit, and in particular the removal of the link to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. Hans Adler 23:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I only removed the link because there was no obvious connection between the misconception and those conspiracy theories. Roger (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Surely you are joking. Hans Adler 09:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


Edmund Burke2 c.jpg Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism.
Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


Christian Terrorism[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Christian terrorism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Go to the talk page if you want to discuss deleting major passages or change wording. You can't just delete RS because it disagrees with your POV. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I gave a valid reason in my edit summary, if you had bothered to read it. You may disagree with my reason, but it is not helpful for you to revert an edit without addressing my reason. Roger (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if you'd actually check the RS in question, without automatically assuming that it doesn't back up the passage, you might have a point. You just assumed, because it was contrary to your weltanschauung, that it didn't. Wikipedia is about what you can PROVE, not what you WISH were true. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You are still not addressing what I actually said. I see from your talk page that believe that all editors are biased, and that your bias is that of a Hindu who is against Christofascism. Maybe you think that McVeigh was a Christofascist. If so, then prove it, and don't complain to me about it. Roger (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying anything at all about McVeigh. I'm passing on what was in the book, which mentioned a "Christian Militia" that supported him. Show me where I've edited or said anything about McVeigh being a Christian Terrorist. I've spent a lot of time searching out references for that page, and I don't appreciate them being offhandedly deleted simply because you feel that the words of the RS don't fit with your opinions. Feel free to add any pertinent RS stating that McVeigh isn't a Christian Terrorist. I'm not gonna do your work for you, though. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I did not offhandedly delete anything. You offhandedly deleted my edits here [14] and here [15]. You inserted false info about McVeigh being a Christian terrorist here.[16] If you want to learn about Timothy McVeigh then I suggest that you start by reading the WP article. I explained and justified my edits. You did not. Roger (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(Usual ad hominem attack deleted) Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Please go elsewhere with your insults. Roger (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Relativity[edit]

Please do not remove material from the Speed of light article unless you understand the subject. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use Wikipedia for your ad hominem attacks on me. Every other editor of that page has agreed that your edit was wrong, and ought to be removed. Roger (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
What I wrote was Circumstantial. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Glad to see you admit that your ad hominem attack was fallacious, even if you do not admit that you were wrong to revert my edit. It does not matter, because everyone else agreed that you were wrong, and that you do not understand the subject. Roger (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Christian terrorism. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not do that. Your edit had the effect of suggesting that McVeigh was a Christian terrorist, when all of the sources say that he was not a Christian. I see now that others have corrected the unbalanced nature of your edit. If you disagree, then I suggest that you give your argument on the Talk page. Roger (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with this edit and it does not look like a correction from where I am standing. DVdm (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard - speed of light[edit]

There is a section here[17] you may be interested in. 이방인 얼라이언스 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Popper's experiment[edit]

I have reverted your unexplained change of the first published date of this experiment. Please read the Talk page and the background section. If you read about the 1934 one, (in LSD for instance) you will see that it is different from the one described in the article. This 1934 version was found to have a serious error and Popper himself agreed that it was flawed. He revamped the idea around 1956 and published it properly in 1982. This was the "Popper's experiment" discussed in the article. Myrvin (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused[edit]

According to this article, you're supposed to be Andrew Schlafly. But you've said you're Roger, his brother. What is it exactly that I'm missing? Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this might explain why I'm confused. Am I correct? Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it does not explain why you are confused. Roger (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it does. According to the NYT, "[Andrew] Schlafly says his bias suspicions took firm hold when his own edits to a Wikipedia entry on the controversy over teaching evolution in Kansas schools — which simply recorded statements, he says, from advocates of creationism — were repeatedly removed." This diff shows you commenting about the edits made by 24.225.245.81, who I assume is your brother. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I guess that you are so confused that you are unable to articulate what you are confused about. Roger (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly and [18][edit]

Conflict of interest obvious, I have reverted your unwarranted edits to my commentary on the talk page.

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

As per WP:BLP and WP:CONFLICT policy, I reverted allegations from an anonymous editor that a living person is a bigot. The living person is related to me, and she has stated many political opinions, and some people disagree with those opinions. But Wikipedia is not the place for name-calling. As per WP:OTRS instructions, I am asking for help. Roger (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Hello Schlafly. I'm sorry to hear you are having a COI BLP difficulty issue. What would be really useful is if you could link the article to which you are having difficulties with. That being said, if the anonymous editor has INDEPENDENT RELIABLE SOURCES to back up their insertion of such inflammatory libel, then it would be allowed to stay. If there are no citations, then it may or may not be vandalism and you may submit a Request for Page Protection. You may also wish to check out WP:3O which is a way to get an uninvolved editor to comment on the suitability of the dispute over if the content is allowed. If that does not appear constructive, you can ask whomever is offering the third opinion to escalate the matter to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm hoping that there is enough information in this response to help you get this straightened out, but if not, feel free to put the {{Help me}} template back up and ask some more new questions. I will be monitoring this page for a little while to make sure that you are satisfied with this particular response. Happy editing!!! Technical 13 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Rjensen has now corrected the offending pages. [19] Roger (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

23andMe[edit]

      • abusive comment deleted *** HelenOnline 15:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I am the one who initiated the discussion on the Talk page, and I am the one who documented my edits. If you disagree, please address my comments there. Roger (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Compromise: something everyone dislikes[edit]

Roger, would you consider supporting the "alternative text" that begins "In the summer and fall of 2014, conservative websites and social media attacked Tyson's character and scientific understanding . . ." I'm not in love with it, either, but it may be the best chance to achieve a consensus compromise for inclusion. If we can arrive at a compromise at NDGT, that should also shake things loose at The Federalist article. Please consider. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the earlier proposal was more accurate and neutral. Roger (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's the situation: there are at least five !votes to exclude under all circumstances. There are about eight or nine votes for a potential compromise if all of them will rally around a single option. There are another three or four swing votes, but they are not going to permit anything more than three sentences, nor any direct quotation regarding "fabrication". That's where we are. Frankly, I'm less concerned about the exact wording of this compromise than I am about the BLP-overstretch veto precedent that will be set if five or six editors can object to factually accurate, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content on the flimsiest of BLP pretexts. That veto idea needs to be taken down a notch or two, and the best way to do that is break the damn logjam with a compromise distasteful to everyone who votes for it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not following the politics of this, but I do not agree with framing it as a conservative political attack on Tyson, nor with Tyson saying he took a quote out of context. He did not take a quote out of context, and that was not his excuse. So I think that the alternative text is worse than having nothing. Roger (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)