User talk:Ed Poor

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Archive: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Ed Poor on campus


Contents

Happy New Year, Professor Poor!

“ Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!--Oprah Winfrey ”

--₮K/Talk! 23:21, 31 December 2008 (EST)


Thank you!

for unblocking ETrundel. --KotomiTnandeyanen? 16:56, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Thanks

...for the unblock! You too may have a reward. Probably not your kind of song, but I'll post it anyway! ETrundel 15:11, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

If it's got a back beat, I can use it. ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 17:55, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Hieros

Hi Ed. Regarding renaming/moving of hieroglyphics to hieroglyphs. After your reply on my talk page I replied with some of my thoughts on this, but have heard nothing back. Tried to drop you a mail too. Can you please let me know your thoughts on this one. Cheers. --Krysg 08:14, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Sorry for the delay; best way to reach me if I'm ignoring you is my user talk page.
I have replied at Talk:Hieroglyphs. Nice article, by the way! :-) --Ed Poor Talk 09:06, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Other online encyclopedias

I am User:Ed Poor at Wikipedia, Citizendium, and A Storehouse of Knowledge. Thanks for asking. --Ed Poor Talk 20:49, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Consonants

User:CherryS created some pages on Fricatives and Plosives and other linguistic matters earlier today. I browsed over to the page on Consonants, and discovered to my horror that it consisted of a one-sentence stub: "anything other than a vowel". I expanded the consonant entry, to the point that the newer pages may not need to be kept as separate articles. --Eoinc 16:41, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

General Question

Hi. I'm new to Conservapedia, but have been a long-time sort-of-prolific editor at Wikipedia. I intend to attempt to add content to Conservapedia that could be considered "neutral", but is informative nevertheless. I came across the Liberal article, and was disappointed by the introductory paragraph. I also noticed that the article could use some proper organization, as well as some coverage on what the word "liberal" may mean in different parts of the world (think the Euro "Liberal" parties) as well as in different historical time periods. However, most of the article, and all of the introductory paragraph was written entirely by Aschlafly (WikiBlame! Wonderful tool) and I'm afraid that if I replace it, I will get banned for "removal of factual content" or something like that. Any advice on the correct way to improve this and countless similar articles?

Thanks a lot,

PhillipA 13:29, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

  1. If an article is not protected, feel free to add to it. In case you suspect admin bias, be sure to explain your proposed edits on the article's talk page ahead of time. This is the same procedure used at Wikipedia. In general, writers who are biased are unaware of it; those who are consciously biased won't admit it.
  2. On the other hand, you may be the one harboring bias, unconsciously or otherwise. So explaining your proposed edits and waiting for admin response would be the only way to avoid getting smacked down in that case.
  3. It's always effective to link any controversial information to its source. For example, if you want to "improve" the global warming article by mentioning an assertion that most of the last century's 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in atmospheric air temperature is due to human activity:
    • Bear in mind that this contradicts independent scientists at MIT and Harvard;
    • Cite your source. If it's a source which has a non-scientific agenda (such as the UN's climate panel, then it really has no place in a scientific article: you may add the information to an article which is specifically about the controversy.
  4. When conservatives are convinced of something and liberals disagree, in most cases the conservatives are right. To present an alternative to the conservative viewpoint, therefore, you must say something like, "Liberal opinion on this issue says ..." --14:48, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for the clarification - contrary to what you seem to believe, I do not want to add "liberal facts" to any article, but instead will work on changing the tone and style from rant to informative article. For example, if you know absolutely nothing about politics, and then you read the first paragraph of Liberal, you come away with the idea that the term may be used to describe any person whose way of thinking is particularly nearsighted, naive, or self-gratifying. This, of course, doesn't hold up when you consider Nazis, Al-Qaeda, or the Westboro Baptist Church, all of which have screwed-up ways of thinking, and none of which are liberal.
In short - I want to rewrite certain articles to sound like encyclopedia entries instead of editorials.
Hope this long way of saying nothing clears things up,
PhillipA 17:28, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Your proposal to change the tone sounds good, but make sure you don't ruffle any feathers. --Ed Poor Talk 20:42, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Global Warming

Hi Ed, you were right to remove that statement. I had planned on putting a follow up to the guys 'hypothetical' statement such as the entire movement is hypothetical, but forgot. In addition, the filmaker's statement read I thought was accurate. "Britain’s media regulator has ruled", "in violation of the country’s Broadcasting Code." this to me meant lawsuit. --Jpatt 15:49, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Liberal article

I noticed you protected the Liberal article because of frequent edit warring. I created a new article on Liberalism that I think covers it fairly well, and I'm not really sure we should make a distinction between the liberal platform and the liberal person. How about replacing the Liberal article, which reads like flamebait, with the an improved version of the Liberalism article? PhillipA 09:23, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Liberalism is the topic, but it's a wide ranging one. For one thing, the recent decades of U.S. liberalism are significantly different from the previous decades; liberalism in other English-speaking countries is possibly even more different. Our friends United Kingdom and Australia march to a different liberal drum.
We could merge the articles into one. Please ask around, and see what Andy and other senior editors want. In any case, the idea is to describe liberalism accurately. --Ed Poor Talk 20:40, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
I view such a merger as an obfuscation, an attempt to water-down "liberal" into more relativist terms. Politicians are either liberal, middle of the road, or conservative in the United States. We don't describe some Congressman as having liberalism views, do we? And, as a conservative encyclopedia, why would we want to present liberals in a more flattering light? --₮K/Admin/Talk 13:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
Okay, first of all, you are using "liberal" as an adjective ("liberal views") whereas the Liberal article uses it as a noun. Secondly, I think my description of liberalism in the U.S. is hardly flattering. Very few people in the U.S. would take issue with my portrayal, I simply try to be as neutral as possible. --PhillipA 11:50, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
On a prominent, self-declared Christian and Conservative friendly encyclopedia, you are trying to be neutral? Why? Wikipedia says it tries to be neutral, and then lets the mob run wild, and reposition even mostly neutral articles to suit their leftist ideas. We are conservatives, and have no interest in "neutral", because we don't allow neutrality to eclipse common sense, PhillipA. --₮K/Admin/Talk 15:16, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
I see both your points, but I'm going to support TK more. We should strive for accuracy while being conscious of our bias. Describing liberals and/or liberalism objectivity is going to involve a certain amount of condemnation, because a significant portion of Liberals hold false or noxious views.
There is no need for us as conservative authors to pretend. (In fact, a pretentious "tolerance" is a hallmark of liberalism: at best, it is selective and self-serving.) The main conservative value is a striving to discover and live by the truth. --Ed Poor Talk 16:20, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Exact Sciences

Since you started the exact sciences article and obviously have some experience in mathematics/science, i would like to ask for resolving a conflict there. I am a physicist and i am deeply embarrassed by finding relativity as an exception from physics as an exact science and astronomy as a "fuzzy subject". The experimental proofs of relativity (see e.g the talk page of "exact sciences") and astronomy as a subject make use of the most accurate and elaborate measurements in existence, to the very limit of what is possible. I tried to point this out, but i my edits are undone, the last time without any comment. I refrain to enter a competition in making changes which are undone without specifying any reason, so i turn to you in that matter.

--Stitch75 00:44, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Physics and astronomy are "hard sciences", as opposed to "soft sciences" like sociology and economics. If you're referring to Einsteinian relativity, the evidence supporting that theory has long been accepted by mainstream science. Is there a conflict with religious views going on, e.g., with Young Earth Creationists? --Ed Poor Talk 20:36, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
Definitely, i see it as you see it (being a physicist) - see the corresponding talk page, however BHarlan undid my edits twice. I am also not aware of any conflict with a religious view, that is why i am even more puzzled.... Astronomy obviously collides with young earth creationism, but i don't think that this make it less of an exact science. --Stitch75 14:20, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
If you'll provide a direct link to the talk page(s) in question, I'll wade in to the discussion. If there is a conflict between religion and science, we need to describe that conflict - even if (unlike Wikipedia) we wind up siding editorially with religion.
If that means we have a pro-religious bias, so be it, but I don't think our project policy requires us to censor mainstream views. --Ed Poor Talk 15:15, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Thanks! The article: Exact sciences --Stitch75 15:32, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

CP Copyright policy

Ed, you may want to re-read Conservapedia:Copyright, particularly items 1 and 2. Your interjection on Andy's talk page doesn't match the official copyright. (NTIAOYB)LowKey 22:12, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Lighten up on the acronyms, LK. Jackalope 22:13, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
It was a pun (or the acronymic equivalent).LowKey 22:25, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
I did, and it looks like you're right. But copyright law and permissions can be tricky. I'd rather err on the side of caution than violate someone's rights. --Ed Poor Talk 13:33, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Specifics requested

An entire section which deals with attempts to read homosex into passages was deleted from Homosexuality and biblical interpretation, due to them being ""absurdities", but which attempts WP's Homosexuality_and_the_Bible article offers as viable (and has for a long time), and which i am sure most of today's universities would see as the same. While i agree that these are "absurdities", yet the whole article deals with what normally would be considered absurdities, but now are accepted are viable interpretations, and are contrasted with the position traditional exegesis evidences. Due to the foundational liberal revisionist grid most anything can now be considered reasonable.

Thanks for better formatting changes and any worthy corrections, but realize that it is hardly a full treatment of the issue if prohomosex contentions of approved homosex are not dealt with.

Should i made another page like, "pro homosexual Bible interpretations," which deals with them?

ThanksDaniel1212 22:46, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Daniel....I am not liking that you failed to mention to Ed Poor, the reverts came from Mr. Schlafly. Don't you think, given it is his encyclopedia, that might be something that anyone would consider necessary information? I am not much liking the jargon talk (homosex/prohomosex) either, and certainly hope you are not using it in the article. --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:07, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
I've been busy off-wiki this month. Please fill me in or link to the relevant passages and discussion. Pending that, I'll just say that a huge theological dispute has been raging this past decade or more between:
  1. Traditional theologians, who say that the Bible forbids homosexual acts; and,
  2. Liberal theologians, who explain away anti-homosexuality passages with all sorts of tricks
It is our editorial viewpoint here that the traditional theologians are correct. However, we can present the alternative arguments, so students and pastors and missionaries and others can prepare themselves to rebut the false arguments of the "pro-gay" lobby. --Ed Poor Talk 16:25, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
That aspect has been much done, with many references on both sides. But I got carried away at times in a polemical style and depth, rather than being encyclopedic (in response to the extensive attempts on the other side, to convey, "hath God said?") May God bless your efforts to do good.Daniel1212 09:09, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Daniel, your website is the place for polemics, and of course you are invited to link to it from relevant articles. Here we try to summarize and present information in a different style, but without pretending to be neutral on moral issues. I'm glad you're here, and I look forward to seeing more of your contributions. Keep up the good work! :-) --Ed Poor Talk 12:43, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Well put. I went overboard for this format. Thanks for the encouragement, and praise the LordDaniel1212 19:32, 29 April 2009 (EDT) BTW, what happened to the RefTaggger?
Let's see: John 3:16 is my favorite. --16:06, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

I meant that the popup that used to happen when you did a mouse hover over a verse no longer works.Daniel1212 22:58, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

Webmaster is aware of the situation, Daniel, and its on the list! We did an update recently to the newest stable version of the software, and it stopped then. --₮K/Admin/Talk 23:37, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
Very good. I think this is a real enhancement, PTL.Daniel1212 07:41, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Appreciated

It took me a minute to recall the post you referenced on my talk page, but I want you to know I appreciate your expression of tolerance. I consider myself a moderate despite the fact that I am a pro-choice, fiscal conservative who is more than a little concerned with the current reckless spending by congress and the president. That being said I have seen other editors harassed for voicing fairly reasonable objections to views expressed by some of the more established members. I have generally tried to avoid getting into those types of debates (here and in real life). Nonetheless, its good to hear that a healthy respect for others' opinions is not dead at Conservapedia. JeffC 18:16, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

I have zero tolerance for harassment. Post on my user page whenever you see questionable remarks directed at another user (or yourself). --Ed Poor Talk 17:55, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Requesting arbitration in a dispute

I got in an argument with Conservative on the page Talk:Homosexuality_and_Genetics, one which has gone several days without resolution. I trust your opinion and judgment to resolve this problem since I cannot. I am disputing Conservative's censorship of a cited[1] section on the article. That section reinforced the position of the article, and of this website, by stating that homosexuality is not determined by genetics, and the minor genetic influence on homosexual desire is easily controlled by willpower. I say that Conservative censored it, because his only justifications for removing this truth, and locking the page were ideologically motivated, or completely irrelevant (for example, claiming that the world's leading expert on the human genome is not a sufficient authority on the human genome, yet Conservative is). I want to improve this encyclopedia, and if this page is unlocked, then I will reincorporate the deleted material, rewrite the article to reflect it, and ensure that it supports the conservative position against the liberal pro-homosexual propaganda. I have gone on long enough, the relevant discussion is on the talk page linked above. Thank you for your time. Yours in Christ, --JWeatherman 20:11, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

I do not agree that "the minor genetic influence on homosexual desire is easily controlled by willpower," and I no of no scientist who says so. Rather that is a distortion of the conservative, scientific, and/or NARTH viewpoint. Gay rights activists are awfully clever at setting up a strawman so they can knock it down. Do not be fooled by them, and do not help them.
I'm not interested in a biased article which is pro-conservative, anti-homosexual. My background is mostly scientific. As a conservative project, we ought to highlight the scientific knowledge about homosexual desire and behavior. We should not pretend that it is "easy" to stop acting out, and we should not let anyone put words in the mouths of conservative or scientific sources.
An encyclopedia article should clarify, not confuse. Please cooperate with User:Conservative. --Ed Poor Talk 12:31, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

North Korea

Although most people do know it as North Korea, its official name (conventional long form) is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".[2] It is one of those idiosyncrasies of communistic states that they want to state that they are something they are not. Look at the People's Republic of China, where the people have no say. Or even East Germany, which called itself the German Democratic Republic, when it was neither democratic, nor a republic.--KotomiTnandeyanen? 05:49, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

Hey, no problem

I happened to see the vandal in action, so I took care of it. Jinx McHue 23:56, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Hi, thanks for replying to my email Ed. I was glad to get a response from someone whose contributions caught my eye. Anyway, my question is how did you get started creating and editing articles on Conservapedia. As I said in my e-mail, I have no idea where to even start. Thanks for your time, and I hope this is the appropriate way to ask in your talk section, like you requested.

I was invited two years ago by someone I knew at Wikipedia. I feel there is less censorship and bias here. Ironically, the left has been saying for years that the media are too much influenced by right wing bias! But in fact it is left wing bias which has a virtual monopoly on the media. Expressions of conservative viewpoints are few and far between.
It's a typical liberal smokescreen to accuse the conservatives of occasionally doing what the liberals themselves do all the time. It's the oldest trick in the book. --Ed Poor Talk 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Boston Globe edit

Even if you take the position that homosexuals are such by choice and therefore not in the same category as African Americans, the comparison between anti-homosexuals and anti-semites - and indeed anti-Christians - is valid. Both lifestyles are choices and both groups have been persecuted for their lifestyles.

That said, in place of the bit about "note the convoluted logic," I suggest finding some examples where letters have been published that were openly anti-Christian. This would make a far more damning case and expose the hypocrisy even to those who accept homosexuality as natural. --Gnosis 23:36, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

That's not the position I take. Pro-homosexuality writers consistently write as if they are unaware of the split within the anti-homosexuality movement. However:
  1. Some people who oppose homosexuality assert that being homosexual is a purely a matter of choice.
  2. Other people who oppose homosexuality assert that the development of homosexual desire has little or nothing to do with choice, and that the only matter of choice is whether to act upon that desire.
    • The APA's position is: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..." (emphasis added for CP discussion)
In the latter camp are those who compare homosexual acts to overeating, drug abuse or stealing. You might have the desire to eat too much, but it's always your choice whether to go on a diet (and stick to it) or just indulge yourself. You can always check into a clinic and get help for your compulsion - but you have to recognize that it's bad, first. And hardly anyone excuses thieves who feel "compelled" to break into houses; they are counseled to resist that sinful desire.
"Lifestyle" is not absolute. If you do something evil, I'm not require to condone it. The liberal "lifestyle" of consistently pretending they don't know that it's possible to have an unwanted desire and is a big problem in this country.
If you want to write article here, you'll have to recognize the distinction between (a) realizing that you have a desire and (b) deciding whether or not to act on it. --Ed Poor Talk 14:55, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Cane

From what I know, cane is a kind of thick grass, like reeds. I know that most of my clarinetist friends buy cane from South America. (I think the name for the exact plant is Arundo donax, but don't quote me on that). JDWpianist 17:40, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Your proposal

Any one for Conservapedia:Featured articles? --Joaquín Martínez 17:59, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

What's up? :)

Hey there, this one YouTube user sent me a discussion you had with him about 1 month ago. He told me you didn't answer his last PM he sent you (quote below). So, what do you say? Are you open for a debate? If you, personally, don't have time to debate, could you at last introduce me to the CP community and open a debate page where anyone would be able to participate? (If a respected member introduces me, maybe I'll have less chances of being banned for just proposing a debate.)

Hi, I'm the guy to which you replyed in the "What got ME banned from conservapedia" video. I'm not that interested in having my IP unbanned on CP, but I wouldn't say no to a debate/discussion. It doesn't matter to me if you want us to have the debate over at CP or here over YouTube, I'm fine with both.

My only interest would be in finding ways to improve Conservapedia. I'm not interested in proving that it is "already good", or anything like that. I am open to your suggestions.

Ed

See ya.

It's not CP I wanted to talk about. If you would agree, I would like us to talk about religion and other such matters. Every time I wanted to start a debate with someone on CP I ended up banned for some reason that included the word "liberal".

And I'm serious about this. I do not want to insult anyone here, I know that most here hold very dearly to their beliefs. I just want to have a civil debate. Think of it as a chance to bring me to Jesus. PaulMC 17:22, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Conservapedia is a online conservative and Christian encyclopedia project. Somehow you and your "friend" have mistaken it as a debating forum for atheists and liberals to dispute our outlook. If Ed wants to unblock your IP, and if he made the original block, no one here will have a problem with that, as Ed is one of our most respected and valued Administrators. However, if the IP block was done by someone other than Ed, our rules prohibit undoing the blocks of another Admin, and you will have to take that up with the Administrator who originally blocked you or your IP. Perhaps you should consider creating a board or forum to debate? I know of hundreds of debating forums/boards if you are uncertain of how to do that. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:33, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Yes, I know what CP is, and I don't want to cause trouble. However, you say that CP is not a place for debates, yet this site has a namespace just for that? [3] I really don't think I'm asking for too much. I just want a civil debate/discussion; I think both sides can only win from that. PaulMC 17:47, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Cap and trade

Ed, should these be merged? Cap and trade & cap-and-trade. Rob Smith 13:04, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

As Ed has given me his permanent proxy, rather than keep you waiting, Rob, I can assure you it is fine with Ed to keep the first link, add what you need from the second, then delete. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:01, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
Yes, please do the merge, and then redirect from one to the other (pick one, it doesn't matter to me). --Ed Poor Talk 10:45, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

My User Page

Could you please undelete my User Page? --TCochrane 19:09, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

My User Page

Could you please undelete my User Page? --TCochrane 18:59, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

  • No. I reviewed your past edits and actions, and see no reason for your return as we have moved past the kind of trolling arguments and leeway you were given before. Godspeed to you. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:35, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

We stand together

I don't mind being called racial slurs. Many people of my race made fun of people of other races, or even expressed contempt for them. It is understandable that some of them might want revenge. I harbor no ill will toward them. --Ed Poor Talk 23:06, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

God bless you too. --Joaquín Martínez 00:06, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

Anti-DDT vrs DDT

Greetings and solicitation, Professor!

Per our earlier conversation, f you added new information to the anti-DDT campaign, would you be so kind as to copy it over to your own excellent article on DDT? And right now, you know what it's time for here? Pie! :D --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:59, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

Let's merge anti-DDT campaign into DDT. --Ed Poor Talk 07:55, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

Question

I'm moving the discussion here from Aschlafly's talk page. Can I ask you something? I really don't mean to give any offense, so please don't take this the wrong way, but is there really some organized army of liberals coming here to cause trouble? I've seen some vandalism, sure. But you've been a major player at Wikipedia for a long time-- Isn't there mindless vandalism happening on any wiki project?

I don't know if I honestly want to jump through hoops to prove myself worthy, but your comments about "liberal opposition" made me wonder. Help me understand what is going on. DanielPulido 09:27, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

It's organized, not mindless. So if you want to be mentored, you'll have to start jumping through those hoops. Or not. --Ed Poor Talk 09:44, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
I think I'll pass then. No hard feelings, I hope. DanielPulido 21:49, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
How anyone could not find evidence, including newspaper articles from very liberal outlets like the Los Angeles Times, stating Conservapedia has been under organized attacks from vandal websites, is beyond me. One can look at the user creation log and see pretty apparent evidence. I am sorry you think this is something minor, Daniel, but I would submit to you that someone who has been here for such a short period of time, and has asked so few questions of the people actually involved, is hardly in a position to gage the situation fairly, accurately. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:58, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
I didn't say I think it's something minor; I asked Ed to explain it to me, and I'm still interested to hear what he has to say. And it seems to me there is an awful lot of mindlessness on the user creation log, so if there's more to it than that, well, as you've said, I've been here only a short time. Indeed the reason why I asked the questions I did is precisely that I'm trying to improve my gauging of the situation. Help me learn then, by clarifying something for me, because I'm having a hard time extracting a unified message from our exchanges. If I ask questions, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Please let me know, and I'll try to let your answer guide my future actions. DanielPulido 07:15, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

(unindent) Questions are neither good nor bad: it depends on your purpose, motivation and direction? Are you asking, because you're wondering whether to join and help us, or what? (If you're just asking questions to waste our time or to score points, I'd rather you went elsewhere.) --Ed Poor Talk 13:44, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Antichristian article title

I see you changed the title of the article Antichristian to Antichristian activism, but I'm wondering if a better title can be found. Activism is only a small part, as the article deals with the philosophy/worldview, not just some form of activism. Antichristianity seems most accurate, but I don't think it works, as it sounds like a religion, or some sort of opposite. Thoughts? DouglasA 12:31, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Here's a thought: Opposition to Christianity. --Ed Poor Talk 12:06, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Good point

Bwaha should have noticed that, thanks for pointing it out.

Popular culture

Popular culture doesn't have to be popular. It's loosely defined as anything that isn't associated with anything academic (or of importance). BridgetA 19:04, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

If it's not important, Wikipedia can cover it (instead of us). --Ed Poor Talk 19:06, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
Then shouldn't we remove all the pop culture items (such as video game titles)? BridgetA 19:08, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
Would you please consolidate the video game titles into our Video game article? --Ed Poor Talk 23:00, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Greetings

Hi Mr. Ed. This is user guardianofrice (or previously so). I got your message and remade an account, but I'd like to introduce myself and genuinely help out with particularly the science and mathematical parts of this wiki. I'm currently studying engineering in college and I hope to write some pedagogical articles in whichever sections I'm currently studying or maybe extend to whichever articles here that are in particular demand. I'm more knowledgeable in physics or related fields. So please send a message on whichever ones could use some work, and hopefully I'll get to editing them. Thanks a lot in advance! --Markd

Remember to make our article readable by our main target audience: high school students and adults with some college. Anything too abstruse is useless and should be contributed to Wikipedia instead. --Ed Poor Talk 09:59, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
By the way, I was kidding about posting useless articles to Wikipedia. They've got enough trouble; let's not add to it. :-)

Harry Benjamin Syndrome

Hi Ed! We collaborated a bit on Wikipedia back when you were active there. I always respected your insistence on good sourcing for science articles. I joined here today because a new editor created a bogus article titled Harry Benjamin Syndrome. This Conservapedia article was mentioned here. These people have created this on many Wikipedia languages recently, and all of the spam articles have been removed. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

This is a fake disease. It appears in no medical journal. No scientific paper. It was created by fiat by a group of cult-like eccentrics. It was redirected to Transsexual or deleted outright on the other wikis. There is a legitmate disease called Benjamin syndrome, which they are using to obfuscate the fact that they made up this new "disease" from whole cloth. Thanks as always for the work you're doing to share information with others. That's a noble cause regardless of political outlook! Jokestress 11:54, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Software naming conventions

Sorry I'm so late, but I finally got back to you on my talk page about your suggestion about software naming conventions. --EvanW 12:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Username

I don't know how to change it. My name is Jeff Doherty. --Tovarishch 13:07, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Switched account ID to JeffD. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 14:20, 16 December 2009 (EST)

The Word

I noticed that The Word is a redirect to itself. What did you mean to redirect to? Yoritomo 21:22, 16 December 2009 (EST)

While I was repairing double redirects I also noticed Congress of the United States, which is a protected double redirect. Could you please change the redirect target to United States Congress? Yoritomo 21:27, 16 December 2009 (EST)

  • Done

Changes to Blackwater

Sorry to add to your talk page, but what exactly did you change on the Blackwater/Xe Services LLC entry? The history seems ambiguous to me and I can't quite make out what it is you changed. The articles look good, though, so I have no problems with it. Tzoran 17:46, 18 December 2009 (EST)


Well, if you can't see any change then I did it exactly right. I only meant to use the admin-only "move" function to change the article title, and to preserve the writing credits of each contributor. --Ed Poor Talk 12:00, 19 December 2009 (EST)
I just noticed this; yes, it looks great. Thanks for the help. Tzoran 12:06, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Thank you!

I should have taken care of that housecleaning myself long ago...and you flatter me with your description! --Benp 14:04, 19 December 2009 (EST)

90/10 Caution

I didn't come here to debate, and was only responding as I did because Andy Schlafly commented that I was not addressing enough points to his satisfaction. My first edits here were cleaning up typos and grammar issues added by others to the translated Bible. My second set of edits were brief, constructive comments on a talk page instead of touching an article directly. That suggestion was criticized for not being thorough, and when I followed up I'm accused of talking too much like a debater? I wanted to be a contributor here but the first 24 hours of editing has not shown this to be a welcoming place. --ChrisY 19:57, 22 December 2009 (EST)

I didn't detect much of a compliant attitude in that post. Perhaps this is not the place for you. --Ed Poor Talk 14:15, 23 December 2009 (EST)
Time will tell, but in the meantime have a great Christmas, and I'll be back in a few days. --ChrisY 20:29, 23 December 2009 (EST)
You, you, you, and your own unselfcritical evaluation of yourself! Who said anything about being thorough? You got hint to give it a rest, but you ignored it - something liberals typically do. Now, it's okay to be a liberal and contribute here, but I'd appreciate it if the majority of your posts avoid telling us how great and smart and right you are; show us your wisdom by quietly making constructive efforts, instead of blowing your own horn.
This bit of tough love is my Christmas present to you. ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 10:04, 24 December 2009 (EST)

Smart Growth article

are you sure "stupid" is a good word to use? I mean we are of course a conservative viewpoint forum... but it seems a bit strong. Cheers --JeffD 15:09, 26 December 2009 (EST)

It is imprecise, at best. Jump in and change it, please. I suggest "sinister", deceptive, tricky, deliberately misleading, etc. People who lie and cheat to gain power and money are anything but "stupid". On the other hand, being clever in that way is ultimately quite foolish. --Ed Poor Talk 15:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

Fidel Castro

Mr. Poor you are violating the Conservapedia Commandments by adding speculation and a personal opinion to the Fidel Castro article. I am requesting that you revert it to my previous edit which is clear of controversy. I would also appreciate that you unblock the article for me. --Matthew2208 18:28, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Administrators like Ed Poor and myself make the policy of CP, Matthew, as does Mr. Schlafly. We don't strive as Wikipedia does, to avoid controversy or compromise the truth. The truth will set you free! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:46, 30 December 2009 (EST)
With respect TK Mr Poor is in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments by inserting a personal opinion and is not citing sources. He is also confusing the issue with gossip. His actions are inappropriate as he is not abiding by the rules here. I am simply appealing to be allowed to remove speculation and personal opinion from this article. Are you saying that an administrator does not have to abide by the rules?--Matthew2208 18:53, 30 December 2009 (EST)
Excuse me, Matt, but how can you sit at your computer screen and rant about a lack of sources about Castro's "death" when your edits today in Afrika Korps indicate your own refusal to use any kind of source material whatsoever? Are you applying a double-standard for yourself? Karajou 19:04, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Karajou I was not adding any information on the Afrika Korps. I was merely questioning why some information was in the article as it did not seem relevant. If you disagree with that feel free to contribute to the page on its relevance to the Afrika Corps. You will also find usefull sources on the talk page regarding Castro's "death" as it were. I am simply questioning why an admin is allowed to break the rules here. Mr Poor is in clear violation of Commandment #5.--Matthew2208 19:23, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Matt, not one edit of your's since you been here contained a single reference to an outside source...not one. It's just a case of you as the pot calling the kettle black. Karajou 19:31, 30 December 2009 (EST)
Karajou since you have been checking my editing history perhaps you can enlighten me as to where I have been updating articles by adding information that needs referencing? You will notice I have been concentrating on aesthetic appeal of the articles and concise use of information. I have not added information that would need referencing. I have simply been concerned with articles that appear lacking in reading value. When I add information I will be sure to reference it for you. Until such time perhaps you would kindly stop avoiding the issue and enforce the guidlines accordingly. I am currently violating the 90/10 policy by carrying on with this debate and I would be pleased of you simply did your duty and enforced the rules as it were. That is all I am asking. So in order to not be violating the policy I must stop commenting here. I pray that you gentlemen will abide by your own code of conduct.--Matthew2208 19:44, 30 December 2009 (EST)
Yes, "aesthetic appeal", or in layman's terminology "minor edits". There's no attempt to do anything more...and there's no attempt to source what is posted. You could be contributing source material; you could be making the articles more detailed, but from the evidence seen I just don't see you doing anything more substantive than what is already there. So are you going to do it, or will we be seeing more talk? Karajou 19:53, 30 December 2009 (EST)

A request...

Ed,

I'm making an early New Year's resolution, and I'd like to ask you to help keep me honest. As you might know, I've been trying on and off to eliminate all the redlinks in the Founding Fathers article. Unfortunately, with everything else going on, it's been mostly "off."

Hence, a very simple writing plan for the new year: I intend to create a minimum of two articles per day until all of the Founders are accounted for.

May I ask you to provide me with a kindly kick in the you-know-what now and then if I start to slack off?

Regards,

--Benp 20:36, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Good grief, that's a very aggressive schedule, but if you want me to follow up I will. May God bless your new year! --Ed Poor Talk 18:20, 31 December 2009 (EST)

My user page deleted?

May I ask why? AlexWD 14:09, 2 January 2010 (EST)

You're on probation, until you convince me that you're not here to cause trouble. Fix up the Boo Radley thing, for starters, okay? --Ed Poor Talk 14:10, 2 January 2010 (EST)
Probation? For one mistake? Tough crowd. Re: the article--I already did. AlexWD 14:11, 2 January 2010 (EST)
Alex, I read the book as well; it's a very good book. We all read books here, and we read a lot. I read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich three times, and personally removed an individual from CP for claiming a false citation from it. Understand? Karajou 14:19, 2 January 2010 (EST)
I understand. I made a mistake, apologized and fixed it. Not much else I can say beyond that, I suppose. AlexWD 14:21, 2 January 2010 (EST)
We get a lot of fakers around here, deliberately adding misinformation. Would you believe it? They do it just so they can accuse us of sloppy oversight of our volunteer writers. It's because of this situation that we must be swift and stern. --Ed Poor Talk 14:48, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Tolerance

"senior staff have been amazingly tolerant of opposing ideas"... really? I suppose "senior staff" would permit you a narrow scope to those whom you trust and perhaps reasonable, however more often than not I found this place refusing reason. Evolution has a picture of Ms. Obama (isn't that giving pop-culture too much significance?) in the start of the article, links to Evolutionary racism that has Atheism and Mass Murder; I have to be honest I did not see that coming. Where is the mention of his deeply held [religious ideas] and genocide? Evolution is a convenient scapegoat to hook his deep seated hatred upon.

Anyhow, I don't expect much on the above... but if time permits gander at [[11]], perhaps your scientific inclinations will kick in when you realize how ludicrous "16 out of 17 statistically significant studies" truly is. Does Conservapedia have any sanctions with teeth when it comes to users (User:Aschlafly) who present science with such partisan passion? [[12]] And can't even be bothered to research sympathetic studies and results of note [[13]] that require them to soften their "trustworthy" position.

On a personal note, what is a "RW sock" anyway? I was blocked because someone alleged an e-mail came in, which was a lie. Any sanctions for massive misuse of block? Though I am surprised the block isn't on anymore, I was fully expecting to wait 5 years to contact you. Pity, would have shown great patience on my part. Happy new decade Ed! I'm frankly dumbfounded how you manage to stay sane. --LouisFriend 13:41, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Tolerance of opposing ideas means that we're not afraid of describing ideas we don't believe in. If you'll follow our editorial guidelines, then there's no idea off limits. Just write an article which explains what the idea is, who believes in it, and the reasons they give for it. --Ed Poor Talk 13:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)


Vandal

Hello Mr.Poor, I noticed you're an operator of this site, the username just created, "PatrickBateman1" is most likely a duplication of the user "PatrickBateman" who was active earlier today and blocked for vandal activity.Hope this helps- Glenn.

The/A

I finished the switch. TRAVIS 15:38, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Thank You

For allowing me to contribute here again. --ChrisY 18:24, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Banach-Tarski

Hey, math person! Please take a look at Banach-Tarski Paradox and tell me what you think of the recent additions, let me know if there are any errors, omissions or required additions. Hopefully, we can remove the "i don't understand" tag now. JacobB 23:28, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Orthodox Christmas redux.

So I created the Orthodox Christmas article as you commanded. Orthodox Easter, too. Maybe you or another admin might keep those holidays in mind? Thanks. AlexWD 10:12, 8 January 2010 (EST)

It was not a command. Contribute any way you wish. --Ed Poor Talk 11:12, 8 January 2010 (EST)

Banach-Tarski

I don't know why you think my article was so unsatisfactory - as I've explained, this is taken from lecture I co-wrote with a professor at a tier 1 university, which we then used to teach a class full of non-majors (science majors, but not math majors). Then they were tested on it, and did very well. JacobB 18:07, 8 January 2010 (EST)

Thank you for the move back (and thank you for your understanding re:Daniel1212. You know, after we finish up these Multivariable Calc lectures, I'm thinking of starting some lectures designed for the College math and algebra CLEP exams (pending Andy's green light, of course). I'd love to work with you on those, if you're interested? JacobB 00:41, 11 January 2010 (EST)

Coulter article

Ed, where did you get these dates for Coulter's books? All of them were wrong! VargasMilan 00:06, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Communism and Nazism

Have you considered an article detailing the similarities and differences of these ideologies? From what I understand, they used somewhat varied forms of control - different extents of ideology, hero worship, militarism, and state control of production. DouglasA 13:41, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Yes, I have considered writing Communism and Nazism, and I hope you will collaborate on it with me. We'll also need Professor Jensen. --Ed Poor Talk 13:43, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Great depression

Thought you or Jensen might find this intersting: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518457 Massive Government Intervention Drove U.S. Deeper Into Depression, By THOMAS SOWELLDaniel1212 20:39, 19 January 2010 (EST)

New Debate on citation policy

Hi Ed, I was interested in getting your input on a debate that's sprung up on citations to books. Feel free to read here and offer your opinions. JDWpianist 10:45, 30 January 2010 (EST)

By the way, Ed, what's the official policy on links to paysites in citations? For example, I cited the New Grove Dictionary of Opera on Der Ring des Nibelungen, and they have an online version which can only be accessed through a membership -- though most music university libraries are members. JDWpianist 09:12, 31 January 2010 (EST)

Pay sites wouldn't be valid here, JDW. I am certain that a person of your obvious intelligence will be able to find a suitable free link. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 09:23, 31 January 2010 (EST)
I wouldn't use it in response to a {{fact}} tag, because our typical reader is not going to pay good money just to find out whether some claim is true or not, when there's a controversy. But, Terry, wouldn't it be okay to put it in a "See also" section? --Ed Poor Talk 09:36, 31 January 2010 (EST)
As conservatives, none of us is opposed to common sense, right Ed? But in this particular case the user is pushing the envelope to keep making his valid and well-argued point, even though he didn't prevail to the extent he wants, or thinks CP should accept. To my mind, linking pay sites is the same as if I linked to Encyc Brit, yet no one would be able to actually use the reference without paying whatever it is they charge per month. What good is that? I don't mind the "see also", but I have never seen it done, pointing to pay sites, but that doesn't mean it never is. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 09:57, 31 January 2010 (EST)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor"
Personal tools