User talk:Ed Poor/14

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Ed Poor on campus


  • [snip] 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)

  • [snip] 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)

Contents

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)

Math

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)

Good point ,Ed! --PhilipV

Team work

Scan the contribs of other contributors. If you find someone writing about stuff that you've been writing about, drop them a message on their talk page (or even email them privately). --Ed Poor Talk 14:59, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Writer's guide to trustworthy articles

Trustworthy, easily understandable articles are required. If you care to submit advanced work which builds on the basics, all well and good. Anything over the heads of our core readership will be removed. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here. --Ed Poor Talk 21:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

User:Lemonpeel

You blocked lemonpeel, for being too technical for a whole month? Shouldn't that be lowered, to maybe a week, and if he continues block him longer?

-- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

He had been warned before. WilliamH 19:27, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Not blocked for being, but for flatly refusing to be otherwise. --Ed Poor Talk 21:06, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Article

Hi, according to the history you protected the liberal article. Could you please unblock it and remove the Westboro Baptist Church as a liberal organization? I believe that their political views are neither liberal or conservative. Thanks. Corry 18:20, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Nutty church removed. --Ed Poor Talk 21:13, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Much appreciated. Corry 14:17, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Self-deprecation Department

Minor blighter? How does that compare to Ed Poor? --AdrianC 15:25, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm a complete nobody. That's several steps down from 'minor blighter'. :-) --Ed


Sports

I want one article on the sport of rugby. If there are variations in the rules, which matter to fans or players outside of the US, we'd like to hear about it. But separate articles won't be necessary.

Likewise, we only need one article on American-rules football, even though there are tackle and "touch" variations, along with various pro and college leagues. The idea is to keep similar information together for handy reference and easy comprehension. (Hey, sounds like a new guideline being formulated!) --Ed Poor Talk 21:37, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
The Independent says, "There are two codes of rugby: rugby union and rugby league." Sounds like one sport to me. Anyway, write it that way and I'll take a look. If the two variants are really as different as basketball and netball, I'll let you know about splitting up the article - after it's written. --Ed Poor Talk 21:50, 13 July 2008 (EDT)


Darfur Debate

Ed, I think you can probably delete the AFD debate as well since the original debate has now been removed by another sysop. As the person said, the entire discussion should be handled on the Talk Page of the article, as opposed to a Debate or AFD debate page. Thanks! --Jareddr 12:43, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Line Segment

I didn't even see what the content of this page was before deletion. I was just looking at the Algebra Terms category and to see what red links could be eliminated (in this case Segment). I'll write a new page. -Foxtrot 21:32, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, sorry. I have low tolerance for math nonsense. I'll start teaching again (at a private school) in September.
We need a page with math definitions on it, so if I have to erase one it will live an audit trail (or page history). Math terms maybe? --Ed Poor Talk 21:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)


한국

한국말 하실 줄 아세요?--Pakhyongshin 12:13, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't speak Korean well. 내 호버크라프트는 장어로 가득 차 있어요. All articles must be written in English, with English language references. --Ed Poor Talk 13:31, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

PHP and mySQL

Ed, there's already individual pages on PHP and MySQL. I don't think there's a need for a combined page. -Foxtrot 13:40, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Grave of the Fireflies

Konbanha, Ed-san. I saw you beat me to the punch on Grave of the Fireflies. Will it be ok for me to expand on it - add production details, characters and actors and story synopsis, please? --KotomiTUser formerly known as JessicaT 07:55, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

KotomiT, that's what a wiki is all about so I would say go right ahead. BrianCo 15:23, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
She knows that - she's just being a little extra courteous. ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 18:50, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Thank you! Will try and update, if editing is on when I get home tonight. --KotomiTUser formerly known as JessicaT 22:04, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Internet memes

See my response at Talk:Meme. --Ed Poor Talk 22:08, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Thank you!

For your concern, Ed-san, but I am genki desu at the moment! (Lovely word - genki 元気). Just recovering from grabbing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity with both hands, which has turned my life upside down a little, but we will get over it. The only real drawback is the time difference - it's now 10:30 pm here, which limits editing time, but I will continue to help out as and when I can. I have added to Grave of the Fireflies in the meantime. Hope it is ok. --KotomiTUser formerly known as JessicaT 09:37, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

TolkienDL

Would you mind pointing out where he changed another user's talk page comments? I didn't notice him doing much besides the LOTR edits.--Jareddr 21:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)


Deconstruction

Deconstruction

Could you please improve it to be used as Featured article? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:18, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Line segment, part 2

Ed, I have responded to you on Talk:Line_segment and my talk page. Since you seem to doubt my mathematical authority, I would be willing (if needs be) to ask someone like User:RSchlafly to arbitrate on the mathematical content and set the definition straight. But I'd rather just come to a compromise on the talk page. Let me know what you'd like to do. Also, in deference to you, I won't edit any math articles (except to revert vandalism) until I hear back from you. Regards. -Foxtrot 04:15, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Ed, I noticed you just asked User:DirkE, aka User:DiEb, to submit a writing plan. I don't know how he is supposed to do so when both these usernames have successively been banned infinitely, and the person has said emails he's written to you have been unanswered (apparently because they never got through to you). It seems like a Catch-22. -Foxtrot 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Okay, so now I'm more informed of the situation. I can now personally attest that your email works just fine and the writing plan can be submitted that way. -Foxtrot 13:53, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Foxtrot

Er. Could you maybe unblock Foxtrot again? Pretty please? He did a good job of refining the articles I started (adding categories and expanding definitions) for example, and considering that he apparently got blocked just for pointing out your apparent error, I think this is going a bit far. "Mind your own business" is not a Commandment, and that user has been very productive. Please reconsider; we can use his help. --DirkB 20:00, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Done. --Ed Poor Talk 20:09, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for undoing the block so quickly, Ed, and thanks, DirkB for appreciating my work :-). Though my experience with the unblock seems to suggest there may be some glitch there. After being unblocked, I tried to edit and my block was automatically extended by 0 minutes, and then the next time I tried in a few minutes, it was extended for a day. When I tried again this morning, it extended again, so I just unblocked myself with the ID of the new "block". I wonder if this has been happening to other users coming off their blocks. If so, we should tell Andy to look into it. -Foxtrot 13:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

You have been working hard again

I have been working hard also, but no one cares :( HenryS 21:22, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Writing assignments

Excuse me, but I need to ask this, with the utmost earnestness: Ed who the hell do you think you are to order writing assignments? --Jeremy 11:12, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Such nasty language, and from a volunteer no less. Try reading the Conservapedia:Guidelines:
  1. Let others boss you around.
    • Yes, take assignments from your fellow editors. If someone asks you for an article on a topic you know about, or are interested enough to bone up on, please do.
I put that concept in the guidelines over a year ago. If want it changed, please contact the Project Director. Good luck in all your future endeavors. --Ed Poor Talk 19:18, 1 September 2008 (EDT)


Palin debate page

I've set it up where it belongs. Thanks for the suggeestion. --DinsdaleP 14:21, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Archbishop Milingo

The Commandments are quite clear: no gossip. With that article you are offending the largest Christian denomination in the world, which happens to be the one our Project Leader belongs to. Please don't edit religion articles, but stick instead to your field of competence, that of mathematics. Thanks, --SilvioB 19:08, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the advice, but after 2 months' rest, I am happy to share my expertise in multiple fields of competence. It is not only liberals who can speak truth to power, but conservatives as well. This web site will continue to do so, unless the next president finds a way to revoke the First Amendment. --Ed Poor Talk 12:04, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Founding Fathers and Religion

When I said "the founders had no intention of applying their personal faith to the nation as an institution", I was just referring to the fact that there is no mention of God in the Constitution. Since that document is the blueprint for the government we live under, it's clear that they made a choice to leave religion out of the operating framework, or institution, of the U.S. government, other than the amendment guaranteeing the freedom to practice one's religion. This certainly doesn't imply a lack of faith by the founders, and there are references to God or "the Creator" in other key documents like the Declaration of Independence. Since several of the original colonies were formed by religious groups looking for the freedom to practice their faith without interference or persecution, I believe there was an acute sensitivity to making the institution of U.S. government secular in nature, leaving the practice of each person's faith up to them, and not influenced by the operation of the government.

I didn't think this was something to debate, but I'll still be happy to set up a page and transfer this post there. --DinsdaleP 22:01, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your candor.
The difference between liberals and conservatives on many points is that (1) they don't realize that their own notions are merely a "point of view" or that (2) there is anything to debate.
Does it come as a surprise to you, to learn that conservatives largely disagree with your "clear" conclusion about the founders and religion? (Note: I am not belaboring the point here or arguing that it is so - I am merely alerting you and other liberals to the fact that it is chiefly liberals who make that argument; and that conservatives make the opposite argument: that the founders intended religion to inform government - with only the limitation that no one church be allowed to take over and that no minority church be suppressed.
I wanted to put this on a debate page, because the POV difference is not well understood by most people.
To repeat: it is the liberal POV that (for reasons such as you gave above) the Founders had no intention of God or religion having influence over government, and it is the liberal POV that the Founders did.
Let's debate this, with each of us drawing on historical documents for evidence. --Ed Poor Talk 20:14, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Okay, I'll set it up on Saturday - my time is maxed between now & then I'm afraid. --DinsdaleP 21:39, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Ed, I think you had a Freudian slip in the line beginning "To repeat:". -Foxtrot 22:59, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

The debate page is set up at Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"? I'm looking forward to an informative exchange. --DinsdaleP 12:08, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Censorship in Heavy Metal article.

User Jirby is a self-professed devout follower of the Heavy Metal ideology and is censoring its harmful effects from the Heavy Metal article. I don't have the power to block him myself, so I thought I'd inform someone who had that power. I'm tired of these Metal fans trying to paint Heavy Metal as a pro-Christian genre of music when its harmful effects are self-evident. -- Jose83

I think this came up before a few months ago if my interpretation of the talk page is in any way correct. I won't censor jack. I can take criticism. I won't take /unsourced/ criticism that is obviously so rooted in ignorant opinion that calling it anything else would be deceitful. Jose has yet to source the things she claims. The best she did was source the lyrics of several songs and as justification for her allegations, which is a weak position at best. Anyway, that is my position. Jirby 15:24, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Could you take a look at this page? There is a disagreement on the talk page involving a previously blocked parodist (Jose83). Thanks. HenryS 20:19, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

I've never been blocked for being a parodist and quite frankly I find the accusation offensive. All you have to do is look at my edit history in order to be convinced. In fact, If you look at my talk page, you will see that Andy has thanked me for pointing out parodist edits to him. -- Jose83
Your block log is quite clear: 2 blocks for parody. HenryS 21:23, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

A week?

In retrospect, I do not know exactly what I was thinking when I put in the information about the usage of parentheses in multiplication, and looking back, I still can't believe the glaringly obvious mistake I made. In retrospect, I should have made it 9(4+4), instead of attampting to multiply. Onto a main point I want to make, I do honestly believe tjat blocking me for a week over such a trivial mistake was a bit... overblown, to say the least. All in all, my sincere apologies for my mistake. John 15:56, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

News suggestions

Ed, since you post to the "In the news" section of the Main page, I'm requesting your help with the News suggestions. So far, 54 of these suggestions have already been posted to the Main page and moved to the [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives|suggestion archives]]. With your help, we can continue to receive and post positive suggestions from our editors.

Please review the suggestions. If you like one (or more of them), please post the article(s) on Template:Mainpageright and add a note that you posted their suggestion. If you don't like a suggestion, add a comment and the suggestion will be moved to the suggestions talk page. I will take care of the rest (archiving, updating counts, etc). Thanks for your assistance. --DeanStalk 11:17, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Welcome back

We miss u. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 12:09, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Happy to have you back as well! It seems like I was the only one working on math while you were gone, and even I was getting distracted with more pressing matters. Looking forward to working with you again. -Foxtrot 12:46, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Nice to see you editing here again. --DeanStalk 14:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks, Foxtrot and Dean! I look forward to many hours of pleasant collaborative writing. --Ed Poor Talk 14:18, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Okaerinasai, Ed-san! It has been quiet here without you. --KotomiTKonnichiha! 14:01, 4 November 2008 (EST)
ありがとう, and how's that once in a lifetime opportunity going? :-) --Ed Poor Talk 14:03, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Ah, alas it proved a bit too much to attempt so much in such a short time - especially where bureaucracy is involved - but thankfully I have a full-time position now starting with the new school year (1 April), so will be moving back permanently in the new year, which will give me more time to get settled. Some things in life are better when they are not rushed. Thank you for remembering! --KotomiTKonnichiha! 14:11, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Hi

hey, could you make this page? Terry Schiavo(I cant believe no one else has made it yet!) I don't know very much about the whole thing so I just thought I'd give it to you because you're not busy enough. ;) --Ṣ₮ёVeN 12:21, 3 November 2008 (EST)

LOL! I'm plenty busy, but not so much that I can't take requests from my fellow contributors. --Ed Poor Talk 12:23, 3 November 2008 (EST)
The correct spelling is Terri Schiavo. HelpJazz 12:35, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Lol thanks so much.--Ṣ₮ёVeN 12:36, 3 November 2008 (EST)

I was going to add this:

Terry Schiavo was a coma victim whose plight came to national attention early in the Bush Administration (Dubya). The legal issues split the country as much as the abortion issue of the 1960s and 1970s.

While on a weight-loss diet, Schiavo took in too little potassium, resulting in brain damage. Her condition was diagnosed as a persistent vegetative state. Her husband and her parents became locked in a lengthy legal battle over whether to keep her alive. Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his brother President Bush sided with the parents, who believed their daughter was responsive. Courts finally decided to terminate her life support on March 18, 2005, and she died of starvation and dehydration within two weeks.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)

Ed, I like that intro a lot better than the one that's currently there. Welcome back :) HelpJazz 12:41, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks! I wrote hundreds of intros at Wikipedia. I guess I just like to sum things up. --Ed Poor Talk 12:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Ed, I created a redirect to the correct spelling of her name. Feel free to add this intro there. I'd throw in the word "activist" in front of "courts", simply because they were acting against the wishes of her parents (two) and the well-supported opinion that she was still alive. -Foxtrot 12:45, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Let's put activist in the controversy section. --Ed Poor Talk 12:50, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Wonderful

Hey, how did you do that? How did you hack the real Ed Poor's account? Brilliant. Could you hack into TK's account as well? Imagine what a nice vandalising we could do together, as "Ed Poor" and "TK"! --JenniferL 14:36, 3 November 2008 (EST)

You're confusing hacking with cracking, a common newbie mistake. ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 14:39, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Addition & sum

Now Addition is defined as the sum, and Sum as an addition. You can add (pun intended) Addends to the mix, but it's still the same snake biting its own tail. --Jonsen 13:13, 4 November 2008 (EST)

You're right: neither is well-defined. How about subtraction? For now, I'll just redirect, but we'd better provide a simply definition. How do you like googling? --Ed Poor Talk 13:29, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Long time no see, Ed. Would you mind if I restored the addition article with some Third Way between the extremes of University level definition and the high-school one? Perhaps with a simple introduction that goes into more detail later on? It'll break the ouroboros that Jonsen notes above. --Wikinterpreter

No objection at all. Just try to make the article accessible to our target audience, which begins at age 12. --Ed Poor Talk 14:37, 4 November 2008 (EST)
  • Will do. But I'll be sure to add in something for the upper reaches of our target audience, too ... --Wikinterpreter
Try labeling it with something like Formal definitions of basic math concepts. --Ed Poor Talk 15:33, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Not to worry, the putative article seems fairly good for all. While you're online, Ed, could I ask a quick favour? I've made a handy diagram to go with the article's instructions for columnar addition, but can't upload it. Could you upload it for me? Pwetty pwease? I've stored it here, so if you could put it on, that would be great. I could also do ones for long division, and long division of polynomials, should it be of help. --Wikinterpreter
Hooray for Ed Poor! Thanks mate. --Wikinterpreter
Any time. --Ed Poor Talk 17:18, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Ed. What are you doing with the addition articles (addition, sum, addend, etc)? They were written at a high school level. Addend was not circular -- it was written in terms of addition -- yet you deleted it. You replaced addition with a redirect to sum, which (as has been pointed out to you) was written in terms of addition! The definition on the addition page was perfectly at the high school level -- they do teach that it is a symmetric operation (commutative) and it's associative, has identity, etc. These are all BASIC properties that are taught in 4th grade or earlier! Your present comment on the talk page for sum makes it seem like we're gearing the mathematics articles to kindergartners. I would be devastated if you expect beginning high schoolers (12 year olds, by your own standard) to not have a thorough knowledge of addition. The definition you are proposing is far beneath their understanding and the content was not "abstruse number theory". --Foxtrot 17:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)

I must admit, when I learnt long addition (in a Church school, no less), I was 6 ... I took the lead from Ed's comment. Nonetheless, I can sort of see how you could build it up: start with counting, then you've got long addition, then it isn't much of leap forwards to long division, then, from that, it's a fairly short distance to long division of polynomials, which are high-level maths. --Wikinterpreter

Wikinterpreter, your current version is a significant improvement over the redirect. However, the article (particularly the "methods of addition" section) is still grounded in just considering addition of whole numbers, and this is the main issue I have with Ed's comment on the Talk:Sum page -- counting is only an appropriate explanation for whole numbers (or integers, if you want to consider negatives). It becomes very cumbersome for talking about adding fractions (rational numbers) and completely ineffective for talking about real numbers. All these kinds of numbers are ones that students will have seen plenty of by the time they're twelve and there's no reason to gear the definition at a preschool level and then build it up, when beginning high schoolers are at a much higher level of mathematical maturity by then. -Foxtrot 18:15, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Two suggestions:

  1. Move this discussion to talk:addition
  2. Consider that our readers began learning about addition by adding integers. Very few people are good at adding fractions; do you know off the top of your head that 1/3 + 1/4 = 7/12? --Ed Poor Talk 19:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
copied to the talk page. See you there! -Foxtrot 19:46, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Robert Heinlein

The template you tried to use to feature this article doesn't seem to exist, so I just added it to the nominations list on the featured articles page for you. -Foxtrot 20:43, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks. I just read the New World Encyclopedia article on him, and ours is much shorter but pretty much to the point. --Ed Poor Talk 20:48, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Use of Real Name

According to the article, a scientist is "is someone who practices science." It is possible to practice science without any credentials, so I would dispute the argument that my user name implies I have any credentials. Equally, with so many people practising science I'm unsure how using my real name would allow you to identify me as one of these people. Is the fact that my account is registered to a Cambridge University academic email address not sufficient proof that I'm more than a "casual user" ConcernedScientist 09:01, 5 November 2008 (EST)

The mere fact that one is capable of picking almost any name they want means that someone calling themselves a scientist should be taken with a grain of salt. That is, anybody who believes that someone on here is a scientist just because they call themselves one is being naive anyway.
However, I will also point out that your e-mail address is not available to us Administrators (it my be to the few Bureaucrats) for us to check that particular claim (unless you use the E-mail this user feature to send one of us an e-mail; then we would know your e-mail address).
Philip J. Rayment 09:48, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Block of User:Toffeeman

That's a block I'm not involved in - yet - but wich raises some annoying questions. You block User:Toffeeman for three month, reason: pretending to be clueless. This, you elaborates in a post:

(blocked for belaboring the point): Inflated, because your response is too long. Pretentious, because you pose as a teacher or boss here when your role is limited to that of a student or a volunteer writer. Take some time off to reflect on whether your time here has any potential to contribute to our project. --Ed Poor Talk 08:41, 10 November 2008 (EST)

So,

  • where is the difference between an ongoing discussion and belaboring a point?
  • who assigns the roles in this project: why is Toffeeman (just a) student or a volunteer writer, while you seem to see yourself (correct me if I'm wrong - preferably without blocking me) as a teacher or boss? --BRichtigen 09:12, 10 November 2008 (EST)
BRichtigen, EdPoor is a respected admin here of repute and long standing, while Toffers - and you - are editors. The role of people like Ed - leaving aside his/their many and impressive substantive contributions to this project - is to guide, advise and dicipline. Without Ed and his peers Liberal saboteurs would have had a lot more success in their aim of turning Conservapedia from a valued resource into a beerbear garden. Bugler 10:39, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Hey, leave the beer out of it! :-P --JimP 23:05, 10 November 2008 (EST)
lol shows the way my mind works... I meant bear garden, natch. Bugler 10:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Rich belabored the point when presented with the choice between (a) finding the reference we all knew was there (in which case he didn't even need a fact tag, or (b) admitting he was just using the tag to express his ideology (in which case he'd be wrong to place a fact tag.

It's not a matter of laziness on anyone's part, but unless I've severely misjudged him a matter of dishonesty on his: specifically, the pretense or pose of cluelessness. --Ed Poor Talk 07:10, 11 November 2008 (EST)

belief in evolution article

Hi, I tried to fix the no references tag because you did have a reference that didnt appear but I must have got it wrong. Could you have a look at it ? thanks . Markr 16:47, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Hi

I am new here, but the quality of your edits amazes me! Awesome! I wish I could be as good an editor as you one day. Do you think it will be possible? --Raskolnikov 07:38, 11 November 2008 (EST)

<chuckle> I'm easily flattered. Shall I take you under my wing? Are you looking for a writing mentor? --Ed Poor Talk 07:48, 11 November 2008 (EST)
I'd like to. But I fear that my wiki inexperience will soon lead me to be blocked for being Liberal. Not that I am one, but people tend to misunderstand me. --Raskolnikov 07:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)
LOL, don't overthink it. We don't block people for holding uncongenial viewpoints, but for going against our contributor guidelines.
If you want mentoring from me, study the Conservapedia:guidelines before communicating further. --Ed Poor Talk 07:56, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Shadow party

Can you move the page from Shadow party to Shadow Party (with a capitalised "p"). Thanks NormanS 19:17, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Done. --Ed Poor Talk 07:07, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Block of LiamG

You blocked LiamG for violating the 90/10 rule for a month. I looked at LiamG's contributions and couldn't find more than six comments to talk sites (or his own user site) in a row for the last two months. Would you explain to me how you calculated the quota? --BRichtigen 07:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Pretty much the same way I calculated the 'quota' for your block just now. --Ed Poor Talk 07:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
And that is...? Philip J. Rayment 07:51, 12 November 2008 (EST)
  • The 90/10 rule, unique to Conservapedia, authorizes the blocking of accounts that engage in excessive talk, bickering, last wordism, and other unproductive activity.

There is no set quota. I simply judged their proportion of unproductive activity as excessive. --Ed Poor Talk 08:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I'm all for not getting legalistic with precise and detailed rules. But we also have to be very careful to avoid too much subjectivenes. That neither even comes close to the 90%/10% guideline (i.e. the guideline for the excessive talk rule) suggests that these blocks cannot be justified on the ground of excessive unproductive talk. Philip J. Rayment 08:19, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I try to be careful. I'm probably the most willing of all sysops to change mind, if someone shows me that a blocked user is sufficiently productive to reinstate. Please show me. --Ed Poor Talk 08:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Philip is right. Perhaps you should block people using another block reason. --Unaware 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I've been sticking my nose into it way too much this week, I should just go back to editing, but it does seem to me that you have a *rule* of 90/10, and people like myself do consider what we say based on the assumption that we can "talk talk talk" to a certain limit (90%). When some sysop says "I don't have to follow the stated reasons" it feels arbitrary and punitive. Not everyone agrees. And a valuable resource like CP should have (and accept) an open mind to *discussing* opinions, differences, and points of view - so that either a consensus can be reached, or if necessary, a decision by those with more "authority" and on the job training, as it were, can make an executive decision. But lately it's felt like "you don't agree with me, so i'm blocking you for being a liberal" (even when the poster clearly *isn't* a liberal). Sorry if these comments offend, or if you think I'm too young/new to post this opinion.--JeanJacques 10:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Don't worry. You're a good contributor. We use the productivity rule against people who barge in to waste our time.

I welcome thoughtful discussion, but I cut off distractions. Perhaps that's why the writing course I'm teaching in Queens has tripled its enrollment. Parents want their kids to learn. --Ed Poor Talk 10:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Hi Ed - I just happened to notice your comment about the writing course. I have a son who could use some extra help with writing. How can someone enroll in your course? --HenryG 11:54, 12 November 2008 (EST)
We live in New York City - you mentioned Queens, and that's in fact where we live (Woodside). --HenryG 13:17, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Absolutely amazing. You're within walking distance of the school. Please email me, so I can put you in touch with school administration. --Ed Poor Talk 05:56, 14 November 2008 (EST)

LiamG has been a defender of this site against vandals. My two cents.--Jpatt 00:45, 14 November 2008 (EST)

I unblocked him yesterday. If he's still block, tell any sysop. --Ed Poor Talk 05:54, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Block of LowKey

Why the block? Your stated reason just didn't match my edits. I emailed you: no response. I emailed you again: no response. I even took the drastic measure of posting to WP talk page: no response. It took an email to another sysop to get any reaction at all. You state the reason as "sarcasm again - deleting useful info w/o reason" but no reference as to when I was sarcastic (even a first time, let alone again), or what useful info I deleted. CP states that warnings are appropriate, but I received no warning - which would have at least allowed me to find out if you even have the right user. What gives?LowKey 08:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)

You deleted a sentence from Examples of Bias in Wikipedia which called it "simply unreliable", which you called an out-of-place assertion.
Your sarcastic comment was just before that, "Care to name one, and rock the scientific world?"
You may contribute to this encyclopedia if you avoid such unsupported deletions from articles and sarcastic comments on talk pages.
Also, avoid your strident tone, if you expect to keep the username LowKey. --Ed Poor Talk 11:46, 13 November 2008 (EST)
If the deletion from the Wikipedia bias article was so unacceptable that it deserves a block, why didn't you reinstate it?
Personally, I think he was probably right: the comment he deleted was out of place. I had seen the deletion, and let it stand because I didn't think it needed to be there.
Sarcasm has its place, and there was nothing wrong with his use of sarcasm either.
Philip J. Rayment 21:09, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Yes, I deleted a sentence which said “Wikipedia is simply unreliable” from the “Examples” page. It was in an article about the unreliability of WP, and it was not an example, and it was phrased as a simple assertion. It was therefore out-of-place in the article, which is the reason I gave (I did not challenge the truth of the assertion). So I did not delete it without reason, and the usefulness of that sentence in its setting is highly dubious. This is supported by the fact that nobody missed the sentence enough to restore it. So “deleting useful info w/o reason” was not a valid reason, but even if it was I received no warning despite the CP statement that “warnings are appropriate”. My posts were not obscene, so I should have received due warning.
My comment was actually only very slightly sarcastic, and not at all inappropriate. I meant the question exactly as I phrased it. An editor insisted more than once that information-gaining mutations occur, and that he/she had seen examples of it. A bona fide example of an information-gaining mutation really would rock the scientific world. The question was directly challenging the editor to back claims that he/she was making, while highlighting just how profound a substantiation of the claims would be. You also have only provided one example of so-called “sarcasm” when your block reason was for “sarcasm again”. When were the other instances, and when was I warned?
If my tone has become strident, it probably has something to do with being blocked without warning for reasons that I couldn’t reconcile by a sysop who ignored all of my attempts to understand what was going on. In fact my tone was (and still is) rather low key in comparison with some of comments I have seen from editors in good standing.LowKey 23:07, 13 November 2008 (EST)

AshleyS

Why did you block AshleyS? As far as I can see she hasn't added vandalism or parody; you give the reason as "Vandalism / parody: anagram of founder's name - nice try, though!". For one thing "AshleyS" is not an anagram of "Aschlafly". You also ask her to recreate her account using her real first name and last initial. How do you know that she is not called Ashley S.? Please unblock her and restore her userpage. Thanks.--PhilipV 12:17, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Serious Question

Please understand I'm not mocking you, or trying to antagonize you, but as you're the only member of the Unification church I'm personally familiar with I had a question. All kinds of crazy things are attributed to Unification Church practices, but I was mostly curious how their marriages work. I've seen footage of mass weddings and heard rumors that marriages are or were arranged in Unification church congregations. I'm curious of your opinion/insight on how this works, and whether this is common practice or a rarity that gets heavily publicized. Apologies if my question offends, but I am curious. EternalCritic 14:03, 13 November 2008 (EST)

What crazy things? In most of Asia till the ascendancy of the West, marriages were arranged. "Bend It Like Beckham" is a comedy about the transition from arranged marriages to love matches.
Taking two years or more for a mission (and delaying entry to college)? Mormons do it routinely, and they're not the only church with missionaries.
Tithing? Nearly every Christian church requests its members to tithe 10%. (Not sure about other religions, but donating seems common.)
Refraining from fornication? Common to all religions.
Due to unfamiliarity with the church, and a media frenzy that started around 1973-74, the church has received bad publicity. Too often people didn't check out reports personally; even journalists repeated uncritically whatever sensational thing they had heard. Also, the liberal media doesn't take religion seriously; over 90% of editors are atheists (the evil mirror image of the American people, who are 90-95% believers).
My church opposes communism because of its atheism (not to mention genocide ten times worse than Hitler). Anyone who's interested in the 10,000 homosexuals jailed during the Holocaust - note I do not say killed (many were released) - should be ten thousand times more concerned with the 100 million people slaughtered by the Communists.
But my church also opposes homosexuality, because it perverts love (see the soon-to-be-written Purpose of Creation). People who embraces perversion, fornicators and adulterers, formed an informal alliance to trash my church because of its stand against sexual immorality.
Being a small church - with no budget for fighting back in the media - it was easy for us to become a disinformation target. The evil world loves lying as much as loves murdering, because its leader Satan is a liar and a murderer. (John 8:44) Although our national membership (6,000 adults) is smaller than some individual churches, we have made a disproportionate impact. But at the cost of constant persecution.
The persecution has lessened somewhat of late: Wikipedia allowed me to became a developer, sysop and even bureaucrat knowing full well of my Unificationism, and senior leadership here have been welcoming as well. But the fact that you even have to ask the question shows that our tiny church is still dogged by rumors.
I will prepare an article called Marriage in the Unification Church for you presently. --Ed Poor Talk 06:19, 14 November 2008 (EST)
THanks for the Answer. It is much appreciated. EternalCritic 08:50, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Writing class

Hi Ed,

I'd like to take your writing class. I'm a student here in New York City. How would I go about joining your class?-LawrenceA 16:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Same as the other guy who asked: I'll need to talk with you first. Please email your phone number. --Ed Poor Talk 16:42, 13 November 2008 (EST)
I don't generally jump into private conversations with strangers so quickly. Perhaps you could look at a sample of my writing, in the context of Mr. Schlafly's class, and tell me first what you think I could learn from your class.-LawrenceA 16:55, 13 November 2008 (EST)
I see we're continuing this on the talk page for my homework, but I had an additional question:
And - if I'm to credit your opinion on this, do you yourself have a writing sample, accreditation, experience, etc.? To what grade levels are you geared?-LawrenceA 17:12, 13 November 2008 (EST)

If you want to take my class, take it. If (as I suspect) you're just teasing me, I'm not terribly interested. --Ed Poor Talk 17:34, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Before I work with a teacher, I want to know what I'm getting. Mr. Schlafly displays his credentials on his user page; are you saying students should trust their teacher before they know them?-LawrenceA 17:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)

You know me well enough to express the desire to take my writing class, yet I'm a "stranger" with whom you don't even dare to speak on the phone? You'll have to be more trusting than that, if you really want to became my student. --Ed Poor Talk 07:14, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Not that you show much trust on him either, with that "If (as I suspect) you're just teasing me". I wonder how you get pupils at all with such an untrusting nature. --JusticeForAll 07:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks

Thanks for the backup on the Bigotry article. I fear liberals are going to try to censor it or inject liberal spin, as we've so often seen. RodWeathers 18:29, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Thank you for fixing up the Richard Dawkins article. That section on the interview looks worlds better. :) -- StaziaD 07:10, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Homosexuality in Nazi Germany

I saw that someone tried to revert a comment that you made. I don't think he was doing it in jest. The way you worded it, was, well...let me put it this way; some of the liberal editors I know (they have redeeming qualities I swear; or I just have a high tolerance level) are poking fun at it. Can you see what I'm getting at? I think you should reword the comment before it turns in to a running gag. -- St0dad 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Only if our love is based on true love can it create real happiness

That is a very nice quote! We Conservatives should learn to love in a truer way. We should learn to show more loving compassion. I must say that Liberals are better than us in that department. They tend to forgive more. And block less. --OdiEtAmo 08:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

If only this were so at Wikipedia, where Conservative POV is routinely censored. See my user talk page for an explanation for why this is hypocritical. --Ed Poor Talk 08:14, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Personal tools