User talk:Ed Poor
From Conservapedia
Archive: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Contents |
Latter Day Saints
I haven't followed all this, but the responses by "Ultimahero" to me were unsatisfactory. I told him that if he wanted to express the doctrine of someone else's church, then he should bring in a leader of that church to do so. Quoting from people who were members or even leaders of the church long ago, or even today, is not the way to explain church doctrine.
It's inherently unreliable and non-encyclopedic for a critic of a church to try to explain its doctrine. No encyclopedia should allow such an absurdity.--Aschlafly 16:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
- He was quoting the founder of mormonism, and top leaders. If there was a change in church belief it should be easy t find proof of such. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 16:24, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
- Such quotes are meaningless. Were they expressing personal opinions, or church doctrine? Did the church approve what they said? Has church doctrine changed since they said it? I trust you see the flaws now. Anyone who has an ax to grind against a particular church (or group of church members) should not grind it here.--Aschlafly 17:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Rules
Warnings and blocks are not made as punishments; I'm not interested in justice per se but in helping the project along. Rules are not entitlements to be as annoying as possible. Help us or be elsewhere. --Ed Poor Talk 16:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
How Is Floating-Point Important?
You deleted an entry I created on Harlan Coben. It's an encyclopedia, and since he's a fairly prolific and wide-selling author, noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia. How are floating-point, Colne, or conker appropriate for an encyclopedia while Coben isn't? Or even more applicable--Robert Ludlum, Paul A. Fisher or William Gibson? I would've appreciated either a message first letting me know you were planning on deleting it, or an AFD tag so I could've defended the entry. I take the time to put in a non-controversial entry, and it gets tossed down the can. I think you can understand the frustration. --Jareddr 00:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
- I certainly support restoring the article. Ed, are you one of those deletionists? HenryS 14:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
- Ed, just want to give you another opportunity to respond and let me know about this matter. To take the time and put together an entry, rather than "talk, talk, talk", and have it reverted, is very frustrating. I am inclined to restore the article, but hesitate to do so without at least a response from you. Thanks! --Jareddr 19:55, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
If you've been granted the ability to undelete, then you have the authority also. The article just didn't seem that good to me. May as well put his name along with 100 other bestselling authors in a list somewhere. Unless you're going to do an actual bio on him, like Stephen King and Tom Clancy. --Ed Poor Talk 19:58, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Name change
Hello, Aschlafly asked me to get a name change, could you help me with that please. I would like to use my initials which are B.E.E , thank you. Dotherightthing 22:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
- My name has already changed, sorry for disturbing you. BenE 23:16, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
"Advanced" template
I see you've been getting in fights over the "jargon" template. Instead of risking driving away the few people left who are trying to help make an encyclopedia that is an educational resource, could I suggest making a new template? One that you, I, mathoreilly, and the few people who are trying to help could agree on?
Mathoreilly is correct in that this is not accessible to high-school students. Some (many, IMHO) of the science and math articles are in that category. Rather than banishing such articles from CP, I'd suggest something like "Template:Advanced", expanding to "This article may be more advanced than the usual high-school-level curriculum." And maybe something like "proceed with caution" or whatever quasi-humorous thing you think is appropriate.
There are probably a lot of us who could make a good judgment about where this template could be applied, once the correct template is created. This includes you, of course -- if you don't understand an article, as in the case of quantum mechanics and Riemannian manifold, then you should put the "Template:Advanced" template on. But calling it "jargon" isn't right.
By the way, I agree that the Riemannian manifold and quantum mechanics articles could use some work to make them more clear for non-advanced readers, but there's no way they can be made appropriate for high-school students.
I don't know how to create templates, and I assume that mere mortals aren't permitted to do so.
SamHB 23:15, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
- I think the problem is more one of jargon than of advanced concepts. I have no problem letting people go who insist on using inaccessible terms in their writing. The problem is not the quantity of writers, but the quality of their writing. Didn't Einstein say that an elegant theory should be understandable by a child? --Ed Poor Talk 14:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Like I said, I'm not trying to give the impression that the quantum mechanics article is good as it stands. It obviously needs major rewriting on all accounts--and I think it would be very valuable to have someone help explain the postulates I gave. But this is supposed to be an article on quantum mechanics--so it would be very useful to have the essential postulates of the theory written down somewhere. Now, it's not my fault that quantum mechanics is best explained through the language of linear algebra. I didn't make up these physical laws. Perhaps someone could write a page explaining what an eigenvalue is, etc. I've actually seen the word "eigenfunction" appear in the derivatives page, of all places, which is a much more elementary subject than quantum mechanics. Not to mention that someone made reference to the Hodge star operator in the Maxwell's equation section, which is an example of a FAR more esoteric reference getting mentioned in the context of a FAR less advanced subject. (Incidentally, I went ahead and added an explanation of the Hodge star operator so now the link works).--Mathoreilly 14:54, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
- It's a matter of explaining things well. If you can't explain the topic without using jargon, you can write about other topics. Just don't write about math or physics. --Ed Poor Talk 14:56, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, like I said, many of the math articles I've looked at were full of errors and mathematically meaningless statements. I've corrected some of these, though I obviously can't make a beautiful text book in a day. I'm curious, what is your mathematical background? Why haven't you noticed all the problems on these pages that it took me only a few hours to discover?
In any event, for the time-being, we should err on the side of accuracy over muddled explanations. At least then other editors can get a sense over what kinds of information have to be included. From there they can work on refining the explanations to be more accessible (and I agree this is a necessary part of the writing effort).--Mathoreilly 15:03, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
By the way, I thought I made it clear that I did NOT write that derivative section. All I did was change a few statements that were confusing or incorrect. I didn't think people would like it if I did a complete rewrite myself, though I did suggest that this needed to be done. --Mathoreilly 15:10, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Why did you delete the derivative article?
Could you please explain why you deleted the derivative article? If it had a problem why not revert it? DanielB 19:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Condom Page
Hi, just thought I'd mention re: the Condom article. Fidelity is not an effective form of birth control. Perhaps a slight rewording and rearrangement of the opening paragraph is needed. Thanks for your time J00ni 18:02, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
