User talk:Ed Poor/7

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Muttuism

Mr Ed, I appreciate you thought my muttu article appears a joke, but honestly muttuism is an extremely important part of my culture. I have decided to share the knowledge of such an unknown practice, and I frankly see it as insulting that you deleted it! I would like to know your opinions please

Vandalising

Is happening right now, with ne nonsense articles. What should be done?

Quick Favor, Ed

I was wondering if you could take a look at user: Liberalmedia. I know he was infinitely banned, but he also happens to be my brother-in-law and I thought I would ask you to consider unblocking him. He's a real good kid, a little contrary at times (who isn't at 17?) and a budding economist. Anyway, I think it really hurt his feelings that he was banned so quickly after making a number of very positive edits. If you look at his work with defining liberal and conservative you can see, he's interested in classical philosophy and politics. Anyway, while not a "true conservative" his input could still be valuable. He didn't ask me to do this, I just felt bad for the guy. I will talk to him about his editing and developing a better "wiki voice" before he could come back. Anyway, I know you to be a fair-minded person, so I will just say please and leave it at that. Thank you, Ed. Flippin 14:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Not so fast. He'd have to take back this crack before anything else:
He doesn't care what the study says. He would rather make up what the study says to further his agenda on this site. [1]
Seventeen years is not too early to learn how to express disagreement without being disagreeable. We have standards of civility here, possibly a little higher than at Wikipedia, but in any case more strictly enforced.
As Prince Charles famously said, "Be polite. It gets you what you want." --Ed Poor 10:03, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
By that token you should accede to Flippin's politely put and well argued request. It would be a graceful act. Swordofdestiny 10:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

No, I'll talk to him first and see if I can get him to apologize. I know that study was giving everybody a bit of angst that day and he made a flippant remark. It was rude, I agree, so I'll see if I can get him to apologize. If it's any consolation, he does the same thing to me in fantasy football--the problem is, he's smart enough to always back up his bravado. ;) Anyway, thanks, Ed. I'll see if I can get in touch with him. Flippin 10:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

If he learns some manners, it will be good for him. --Ed Poor 10:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Swordofdestiny (talk • contribs • count) using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. That's nice, I must say. I was trying to resolve a dispute. Swordofdestiny 10:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed, I must say I think that could have been handled better :(. Nematocyte 10:18, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
He does possess manners, he has the same difficulty that my English 101 students had in that he doesn't always realize how he comes across to people in his writing. When I first met him and the rest of my future in-laws he said to me "So, you're the rebound?" A good family story, and a everybody laughed. That's all I'm saying here. I would venture that many people have said worse without an infinite ban. However, I just thought I would ask you because I know with your experience on Wikipedia you'll appreciate the fact that some people take longer than others to develop a proper appreciation of wikietiquete, however it is spelled. I'm not going to get into a thing with other users here, it doesn't really concern them. Flippin 10:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
See irony and sarcasm for comparison. --CatchWater 10:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Me, a sockpuppet? Now what on earth makes you think that? A sockpuppet bent on causing trouble, would not have chosen such an obvious name unless it was an example of post irony - or even post-post-irony.--CatchWater 10:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
This user got banned for infinity based on this? I might be bit too touchy on this subject as i have lately seen some bans that have made me question the integrity of some sysops. Im sure you had more proof of him being and sockpuppet than this. Timppeli 10:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT) Ah, sorry... Actually read his name wrong, thoght he was an older user, but never the less ;) Timppeli 10:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
...or even [post-post-post-irony]]. You know, there has got to be something wrong here. I have no idea why the original was banned without warning, and AFAIK, a sockpuppet of a banned user can be allowed back in. There was never any discussion, and never any warning to the original ban. I am reminded of the Stanford Experiment; where arbitrarily researchers divided up members of the public into jailers and prisoners, and the experiment had to be stopped within days because the jailers were degrading prisoners. I have spent a long time here watching people like IceWedg vandalise the place, and I though "What exactly is the point of that?" Now I know, it serves no purpose except in some small measure ir makes one feel as though one's got some dignity.

(unindent) The difference here is that no one is being locked up and no one on the staff is pretending to get hurt. Would you like to write an article about Stanley Milgram's experiment or about the jailer/prisoner thing you started to mention? --Ed Poor 11:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Hi Ed, if you get bored perhaps you could ask Philip J. Rayment to start an article on Secular Science. Its a term he uses a lot in his contributions. It would be a great addition to Conservapedia. The liberal bias of WIkipedia precludes such an article there. When we have one Aschlafly can use it as another example of bias in wikipedia. Sorry no time, got to go. I'm Taking my grandaughter to pony class. Auld Nick 07:03, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Dear Ed,
I want to just say that I apologize for making a comment that Andy thought was rude. I didnt mean it to be, I just vented my frustration in a bad way. If I am allowed to come back to conservapedia, I promise I will be more professional in the future.
Sincerely,
Stephen, aka Liberalmedia

(by way of Flippin) Flippin 16:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Fan mail: Those magic words, "You're right..."

Re: Talk:Homophobia

I'd been thinking of adding something to my "thoughts on discussions" like this:

Take a few moments right now. Open an editing window, and type the words "You're right." If they seem difficult, practice them a few times until they come quickly and easily. Sooner or later there will come a time you need them, and it's best to be ready when it happens. WIth practice, you will find that when they are appropriate, using them can be almost painless, and does not diminish anyone's respect for you.

However, I can't do it now because it will sound like I'm tweaking you. Darn it! Now I need to wait until I'm wrong so that I can use them myself, so it will be a "do as I do" instead of a "do as I say." Unfortunately the last time I was wrong was on October 6th, 1999, and I don't expect to be wrong again for several years, so I guess it will be a while.

Seriously: Thanks. Dpbsmith 08:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, what you have to realize is (and this is all supported by the cites now in the article), the therapeutic community is backing off use of the term. And the legislators have failed to adopt it also. So new terms are now being invented to take this one's place. So called "current usage", is out of date. RobS 23:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I see no evidence that the "therapeutic community" ever referred to political or religious opposition to homosexuality as "homophobia".
The whole point of the article is the abuse of the term. A second article, Opposition to homosexuality, should be written explaining reasons and methods of societal and personal reactions to homosexuality. --Ed Poor 23:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
The whole point of the article should be the term, its history, meaning(s), use(s) and abuses. Perfectly fine to document the abuses. Fine to say it's mostly abused if it is and if that can be shown. Dpbsmith 09:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Buzzwords

Ed, could you please create an article Buzzword so that those of us who are less knowledgeable than yourself can learn what buzzwords are. Thanks Auld Nick 03:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Poor editing

My user page is my castle. I thank you for you proposed quote but it would have been better if you had proffered it via my discussion page as it is not yet one of my favorite quotes. There is no obvious indication that you edited my page so you are mis-representing me. If I wasn't such a nice guy I would recommend blocking ;} Ian St John 16:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Forgiven. Ian St John 17:41, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Race, racism

You moved 'race' to racing, but racism and possibly other pages still link to race -> racing. Greetings, Leopeo 08:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Well done. Leopeo 08:59, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I've been doing this for about 6 years now. My first wiki edit was in 2001 at Ward's Wiki. --Ed Poor 09:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
One more: the talk page on 'race' moves the discussion to the talk page on 'racing'. Leopeo 09:20, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

AFD

I don't understand what you mean by "transclude." What is it you would like me to do, specifically? DrSandstone 12:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Look at my contribs, and do the same ... :-) --Ed Poor 12:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't know how to move pages, or is there something else you're doing? DrSandstone 12:59, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I forgot that moving pages is restricted to sysops. The part you can do is adding a header to each AFD discussion page. --Ed Poor 13:02, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Alright, like this? DrSandstone 13:04, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, copy the article title and surround it with ==[[ ]]== codes. It's boring, but effective. :-) --Ed Poor 13:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

"Already up to 'L'" Yeah, it goes pretty quick when you get into the swing of it. DrSandstone 13:30, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Since you're ahead of me, can you also demote the subheads? See what I did here: [2] --Ed Poor 13:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Okay, I think they're all done. DrSandstone 13:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I know it's really just part of your duties as a sysop, but well done with all those page moves! Niandratalk 13:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

My pleasure. And Dr. Sandstone helped too. The final result will be at Conservapedia:Articles for deletion. --Ed Poor 13:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Cospeciation

Hey Ed, I am going to merge this into speciation as a sub article. It is to small to stand on its own.--TimS 15:38, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

An idea

Ed,

I'm getting nowhere fast trying to reason with RobS re. the "Anti-homosexual violence" section in the Homophobia article. My first version highlighted three cases of homophobic murder and was, in hindsight, never going to survive the attentions of RobS and RSchlafly.

My second version, however, is arguably the epitomy of restraint:

Principled opponents of homosexuality explicity reject violence and intimidation directed against individuals because of their sexual orientation. According to FBI figures for 2003 - 2005, a male homosexual suffers a serious physical assault somewhere in America every 3-4 days because of antipathy towards his sexual orientation.[1][2][3] Incidences of common assault and intimidation are even more frequent. Occasionally, this violent antipathy leads to murder. [4][5][6]

He then to decided to edit it thus:

For 2005, the FBI reported 1,171 anti-gay violent crimes. [7] Violent crimes are defined as murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, and other. For the general population, the FBI reports a violent crime rate of 20 victims per 1000 US persons [8] or 1 in 50 of the overall population. This would seem to indicate, unless the homosexual population of the United States is slightly more than 500,000, the incidence of violence against gays is much lower than the overall population by an order of several magnitutdes. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since. [9]

Emphasis mine - his latest version can be enjoyed here.

I read in one of your comments that you're a maths teacher. Perhaps you could have a quiet word with him about statistical analysis and valid inferences. He certainly won't listen to me. I'd like to propose a mini-Panel, as it were, to consider my second version and determine whether it rightfully belongs within the Homophobia article, or propose specific changes that could be made. I'm prepared to set the bar pretty high on this one - you, Karajou and Philip J. Rayment as the panel members, with a majority vote binding on all parties.

Is this a fair and viable plan? And, if so, should I contact the other proposed panel members, or would it be better with you co-ordinating?

--Robledo 17:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm a math teacher, but I also mentor teenagers and train Sunday School teachers. None of that is relevant here, I'm afraid. ;-)
I think the general conservative position is that personal violence is wrong (i.e., unprovoked assaults) and that it's okay to use force in defense of another or in self-defense.
I doubt you'll get much support here for creating a special "protected class" of people out of perverts and sinners. Calling it "homophobic murder" only tugs on the heartstrings of liberals and cuts no mustard here, to mix a few metaphors badly. :-(
What I thought we had agreement on, was that "gay-bashing" in the sense of rednecks cruising around town to find some queers to beat up, was wrong. Were you hoping to push this even farther?
It's a premise of "gay rights" activism that attacks on homosexuals are "hate crimes". Conservatives simply say that assault is a crime.
There's a slippery slope from hate crimes of violence to hate speech as crime. By defining criticism of homosexuality as hate speech, gay rights activists hope to blur the distinction which Christians want to preserve: between "hating the sin" and "loving the sinner".
Don't try it here, especially not after appealing to my great talents in math and quiet reason. I'll defend to the death your right to say it all, of course, but you're simply wrong on this. --Ed Poor 17:43, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, you misunderstand my intent. Gay-bashing, as you put it, is precisely what I'm on about. I referenced the "hate" crime stats simply to show that it happens. I don't honestly care what people call it. All I want is a section within this article to say that it happens and that it's wrong. I'd appreciate some feedback on my second revision in light of this clarification.

Thanks, --Robledo 18:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

If homosexuals are getting assaulted out of proportion to their numbers, then that's a shame. Their life is miserable enough. But as I said above, creating a protected class is not the proper response. What we need is more civility.
Perhaps if some group would set an example of tolerance, for example activists giving up the pretense that all criticism of homosexuality is "hate speech", then they would attract more sympathy. This approach worked for the black civil rights movement, as it did for the colonial subjects of the British Empire in India.
But to garner sympathy, you must be sympathetic, and the loveless lives of homosexuals don't prepare them for this. I'm probably asking too much of them. --Ed Poor 18:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Hi Ed, it's me again. I'm not inclined that way myself but I think that many homosexuals do have sincere "love" lives, Rabbi Lionel Blue for example. Maybe not what most of us would choose but we should be factual on how we criticise the choices of others. Ian St John 18:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
As an author of encyclopedia articles, it is my duty to ignore anecdotal evidence such as you offer and insist on well-researched studies by qualified sociologists. That will enable our reader to be factual on how they make their own choices. I assume you share my desire to discover and share facts, right? --Ed Poor 19:15, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Too true, Ed. But you have not provided facts to support your claim for their "loveless lives". I happen to be acquainted with several lesbians (my wife's friends) who have had loving relationships with a "significant other" for over thirty years. So what are your references for the loveless lives of homosexuals compared to say the loveless lives of many heterosexuals? Ian St John 19:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)


OK, Ed, I'm leaving this for tonight at least. If you get the chance, I'd appreciate you looking into RobS's assertion I bolded above. I teach maths as well and it's a schoolboy error: the data collection methodologies just don't allow such an inference to be made. It needs removing. --Robledo 19:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I sense a bizarre argument here. Identifying a crime statistic is not the same as creating a protected class. To say "that's a shame" is downright horrible. It's more than a shame if any segment of society suffers more than another. I'm not taking a stance on "hate crimes" here (although certainly plenty of people have talked about attacks on Christians world-wide), but in order to prevent and deter crime, you have to know where and when it takes place, and by and to whom. Livingston 19:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

All of this is relevant to the bias crimes or Hate crime article, not to the article about the word "homophobia". The latter article is about the false attempt to link religion with "hate". You want a religion that justifies hate, look at the Honor killing article. --Ed Poor 19:37, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I know it's an extreme example, but what about that Kansas guy, [3]?
Phelps better watch his mouth, he's headed straight to hell. He's the poster boy for American hate speech. --Ed Poor 19:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I certainly agree with you. But I think he is an extreme example of a common enough problem that it deserves some sort of mention in homophobia, given the crime stats. Livingston 19:46, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You're missing my point. Opposition to homosexuality is not a "phobia" or a hate crime. Phelps is a lone fanatic. --Ed Poor 19:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Maybe he is, or maybe he isn't. He certainly is the most vocal and violent. Homophobia, as it has come to mean in common language, does refer to prejudice, however, the root obviously deals with fear of, in this case, homosexuals. Opposition to the practice of homosexuality is certainly not the same has hatred or fear, however, there are many historical examples of how fear has lead to hatred. Maybe this is a similar case, maybe not, but to ignore the issue won't make it go away. Homophobia, as it is commonly understood, is a concept used quite a bit, and whether you agree with it or not, you have to present facts to call it encyclopedic.Livingston 19:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Opposition to homosexuality far from a crime in itself but it can become one when the more, shall we say, "physical" opponents decide to take it a step farther. The sad thing about this is that anyone who looks different may be a target for "gay bashers". I have a friend who was hospitalised on his way home by a gang of thugs and is now scarred for life. His crime? Having long hair. And just to make this clear, he is not only not gay but married with children. Principled objection is admirable but it can be used as an excuse by the less than principled --Trashbat 19:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Apparently, FBI stats back that up.Livingston 19:59, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
The answer is a return to civility and community-mindedness, not special laws which can be "taken a step farther" and used to muzzle Christians - as in Europe, where in some countries it is a CRIME to say that the Bible forbids homosexual acts. --Ed Poor 20:02, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That is certainly one answer, I agree. Another would be for many Christians to stop focussing on what the Bible forbids and start focussing on what it promotes. As a European Christian, I receive a lot of criticism for being part of a so called "intolerant" religion when, in truth, I do a lot of charitable work, I give a lot of my time (and money) to those who need it and I am far too busy promoting Christian charity and love to make an issue of homosexuality which, let's face it, is far less deserving of debate time than important matters such as charity, compassion and God's love.

I'll see this site as a success when it stops debating homosexuality and abortion and instead starts to PROMOTE good Christian love and charity. --Trashbat 20:15, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to use so much of your space, Ed. There does not appear to be an article in this "Christian Wiki" about charity. Homosexuality is long, with 50 references. Maybe I'm missing something.Livingston 20:18, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Hold on Ed, I know.."why don't you write it, then." Why can't someone like Schlafly or another devout Christian write it. Why haven't they yet? According to many, it is the greatest of the three Christian virtues (Catholic)Livingston
No, that's not what I was going to say. But I don't blame you for being defensive. On this point we are 100% in accord.
My own chief dispute with "fundamentalism" is that it spends way too much time on asserting that "I am right and you are wrong". Too much talk, and not enough practice.
I'd like people of all religious persuasions, as well as non-religious "persons of conscience" to go about doing good! --Ed Poor 20:22, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey!

- - Maybe you can wait 5 seconds before you edit someone? Isn't there something about editing ettiquete in the commandments? - you've been on 6 days - and it shows - I've been on less than that...give a guy a break. btw - Tom Westman IS notable - he's a member of the NYFD....


Refs

  1. Hate crime figures, 2003 - Table 4, p.18 - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf
  2. Hate crime figures, 2004 - Table 4, p.19 - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf
  3. Hate crime figures, 2005 - Table 4 - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm
  4. Gay man's killing 'tip of the iceberg' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5080164.stm
  5. Life term for homophobic murder - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/5225008.stm
  6. Men in court for homophobic murder - http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/news/stories/200301/21/murder_case.shtml
  7. U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4.
  8. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice StatisticsViolent Crime Rates
  9. U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4.

Sencond Tier

Come on Ed, I have a lot to bring to the table. Second tier, you hurt my feelings.  :) HeartOfGold 20:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

AFD Process

Instead of rearranging includes on the page, could you look at Conservapedia talk:Articles for deletion and consider the idea that was posed there? It should make for easier to read pages without losing any information. --Mtur 21:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh Ed, you have messed up my AFD suggestion. I suggested the deletion of "User talk:CPanel" (which appears to be an utterly useless page). Somehow the AFD page now says that I suggested the deletion of a page called "CPanel" (which may or may not have ever existed). Could you fix it please? --Horace 21:29, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Right now (as I write this), Conservapedia:Articles for deletion contains only the active/pending AFD. All of the past ones have been moved to an archive page which has the list of links. It should be easy to keep Conservapedia:Articles for deletion manageable in size (assuming you don't get too many new ones at once). Just move the ones that are completed off to the keep and delete archives, which themselves are just a list of links, and easy to search for the article that was decided upon. --Mtur 21:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Beautiful in its simplicity. --Ed Poor 21:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
The idea is to archive constantly rather than when things get 'unmanageable'. One bit to do is to sit down and write the full AFD process that anyone can follow and who needs to act during that step at the top of the page so that others can read it and understand it. --Mtur 21:46, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Could you fix my entry please??? --Horace 21:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Can't find it. Give me a link, please. --Ed Poor 21:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I am/was working on an AFD process guide/page. Check my user page for a link to it. If you'd like to contribute to it, please do so. ColinRtalk 21:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
See my post above Ed. I suggested the deletion of User talk:CPanel. --Horace 21:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)


There seems to be some confusion about where things are and what the page should look like at Conservapedia:Articles for deletion. Could someone please link to the Keep and Delete decisions subpages? (the page is currently protected) --Mtur 21:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

My comments ended up here --Horace 22:01, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Realizing that ColinR is also working on a take on the AFD process, here is my take on it - Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/Process --Mtur 22:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Unfortunately, there are several Sysops involved with this process, and only those communicating with all of the others would know. Mtur, I have posted elsewhere I like your ideas. No one besides you seems to have an inkling into ColinR's thoughts. Perhaps you would share them as he isn't. Horace, don't feel bad. Both Hoji and I posted there, and it was instantly moved to the archives. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Has the proposal of Mtur that Andy approved been implemented in any meaningful way yet? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:42, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Just making sure I didn't overlook a hint

I'm not too good at taking hints. I'm assuming you added the fifth item to my "thoughts on discussions" because you like it, or wanted to clear it out from your talk page. It's not a too-subtle-for-me hint that there's some topic or item somewhere where I need to "do as I say," is it? Dpbsmith 05:57, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I like it, and you had hesitated to post it yourself, so I did it for you. I'm not subtle enough to send hints. For subtlety, see Genesis 2. --Ed Poor 09:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Writing plan

Sure, I'll continue to expand MediaWiki, free software, and maybe Linux and wiki, and write PHP and Brownian motion. However, I favor quality over quantity, so don't expect too many new articles. Any suggestions are welcome. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 11:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

How about Javascript, computer program or computer programming, GNU, Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, artificial intelligence, computer chess, etc?
By the way, I wrote an article on Unit testing for Citizendium. [4] Would you please read it and give me your comments? --Ed Poor 11:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Seems fine to me, although it could definitely use a bit of work. I didn't immediately see any significant problems with it, so I would give it an A(-).
Thanks for the suggestions. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 12:32, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Scotland

Ed, I like your changes to the Scotland article ... much cleaner and concise. Jrssr5 13:44, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Scripting and internal links

I left you a reply on my talk page. Not sure what your accepted protocol is (all discussion on initial page, splitting things, or whatever else), so I just leave this alert in case you don't watch my page. :) --JLindon 17:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

It's the same here as in other MediaWiki sites. If you want a quick answer, you alert the person as you did above. Otherwise, you wait for them to check you page. --Ed Poor 07:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Got it. :) --JLindon 07:23, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Mierda/Merida

Hi,

I put an Articles for Speedy Deletion tag for Mierda, which is supposed to be the capital of Yucatan, Mexico. It is an obvious pun between Merida (the real name of the city) and Mierda, which I won't translate...

I'd say that this is an obvious vandalism, but the author has otherwise positively (?) contributed to Conservapedia. Leopeo 18:55, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps merely a mistake in spelling? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Maybe a mistake. Anyway, someone should delete it or change the M-word into Merida (both in the title and in the text). Leopeo 19:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
We need to acknowledge the possibility, but I think the odds are against it, because it is not a transposition of two adjacent letters in "Merida." P. S. IMHO his username, "Pendayho," and the Spanish insult "Pendajo" are too close for comfort. Dpbsmith 19:40, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Help

Could a Sysop redirect Peter to Saint Peter? It is already merged.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:13, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Rugby

Ed, Would you be able to explain why you wish to have just one article for rugby? I realise the games are small in the USA and this resource is aimed at the USA, however, for people in the USA wishing to learn about facts abroad it seem useful to have a full encylclopedia. stevendavy

I'd like an article about Rugby to explain the origin of the game and how it is played. Another article or two on rugby leagues and teams would be good.
I don't want dozens or hundreds of tiny article on individual teams (clubs). Please merge these into List of rugby teams.
When an article gets too big, we can split it. --Ed Poor 09:13, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
That seems reasonable, and I am happy to work on that. I would say though that rugby league and rugby union are two different sports, so there would be little sense in having a list of general rugby teams anymore than netball and basketball teams should be put together. I will work on a list of rugby league teams and expand the section on rugby league. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevendavy (talk)
  • If it puts it into perspective, I called for the merger of the articles on American Baseball and Football teams into one as well. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:02, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

scotland

I don't see why the information regarding scotland departing from conservative christianity has to be deleted out. I put it back in minus the man with the kilt pic. Conservative 19:56, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Marquis de Sade

If I objected to a picture of a kilted soldier exposing his bare buttocks, then I think I have to express some concern over the Marquis de Sade article morphing into a guide to well-written, literate, sadism-themed pornography

I personally (with the agreement of my wife) left a copy of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue out in the living room when my kids were in their early teens, as communication of the simple truth that Dad leches after pictures of lightly-clad women, and discussion of our attitude toward erotic feelings.

But the books you mention exceed my threshold for what I consider to be "family-friendly," and in I think they really would be emotionally disturbing to children in their young teens. If pressed I'd say it's not good for people under age 18 or thereabouts to read them. I could be old-fashioned about that, let's say 16.

As always, the issue is not whether they already know about it or whether they find see this material someplace else or whether it's already hidden somewhere in their rooms. Or whether it's protected by the First Amendment. It's whether Conservapedia is comfortable mentioning these tiles on a site which I think is still intended to be a reference for homeschooled teenagers. Dpbsmith 10:03, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I censored the titles and the link. Is that enough? --Ed Poor 19:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I think so. Mostly just wanted to make sure you'd thought about it. I can't quite stop nit-picking, though. I'd change or leave out the phrase "as innocent as Disneyland." I'm not even sure what Rice's quoted line about "a Disneyland of S&M" was supposed to mean. Maybe change it to "acceptable for sale in mall bookstores?" Dpbsmith 20:47, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Please make the required changes. I trust you more than I trust myself, on such matters as this. --Ed Poor 21:38, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Average

I noticed that you edited out my (correct) version of average, and replaced it with the previously (incorrect) one, labelling my version as obscure. This confirms for me what I have been thinking for some time, that the entire CP project is doomed, unless you and other Sysops get a bit more open-minded, and read the entries that others have written and are prepared to learn, rather than be dogmatic. I defined Average, exactly as I would define it to my students; the point is, that in common parlance, people use average as the middle or most likely of set of data, without actually understanding that the idea is problematic. As it turns out, the most sensible 'middle' is actually the median, and the most common is the mode; however, neither of these are what people normally refer to as "the average"; notmally they calculate it using the arithmetic mean. However that is neither the most common, nor the middle. Can you provide an explanation what the arithmetic mean ACTUALLY is - what is it attempting to measure in everyday language??? It's extremely difficult to explain.

In fact, what the arithmetic mean is, goes something like: "If all the data were the same, but you had the same total as you had before, then the data value you get would be called the average". The aritmetic mean of 10, 20 30 is 20.

The geometric mean you get when you ask the same question for rates of interest (10%, 20% and 30% have a mean of 18.17%), and the harmonic mean you get when you ask the same question about speeds (10kmph, 20kmph, 30kmph have an mean of 16.3kmph) .

If anyone who was editing the average pages knew anything about descriptive statistics, this page should say something a lot different.

You certainly should not be reverting such pages, because you clearly don't have sufficient mathematical understanding to appreciate the nuances. --SeanTheSheep 03:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

TK makes some popcorn, pulls up a seat. This is gonna be fun! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I liked Sean's version, might have been wordier than the original, but it still made sense. Jrssr5 10:58, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Taking a bit of popcorn. I agree that Sean's is better, more accurate, etc. If we want to "dumb things down" here, fine, but why? Aren't conservatives at least as intelligent as WPians?JoyousOne 11:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Darned if I see anything wrong with Ed's version. And I don't particularly like:
In fact, what the arithmetic mean is, goes something like: "If all the data were the same, but you had the same total as you had before, then the data value you get would be called the average". The aritmetic mean of 10, 20 30 is 20.
I prefer:
What the the arithmetic mean is, goes something like this: if you had a (weightless) ruler, and you put a penny on it at every data point, then the average is the place where the ruler would balance.
And, by golly, if you want a weighted average, well, you can use unequal weights!
In other words, I feel strongly that conceptually the average of two numbers is not "half the sum" but is rather "splitting the difference." I.e. the average of x and y is much more naturally written as
x + \frac{y - x} {2} = y + \frac{x - y} {2}
then as
\frac{x + y}{2} or as \frac{x}{2} + \frac{y}{2}
(and, yes, I can do the algebra and I know these are all equivalent). (I hope I can do the algebra... lately I've been having trouble with the little mental-arithmetic quiz I get whenever I want to add a link!) Dpbsmith 16:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
In fact you are describing the first moment about a value in the data. If you take the first moment about the mean the whole thing balances, and perhaps you are correct in saying that this is a clearer explanation of what the arithmetic mean is trying to do - a balance point. In fact the mean is the first moment about zero.--SeanTheSheep 16:51, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. Dpbsmith 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)


Ed, can I ask that you read what I have written on the Talk page for Average?--SeanTheSheep 18:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I made a suggestion on, i think, Sean's page about the problem. If you have a chance, check it out. ThanksJoyousOne 20:35, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

AFD Agreement

Why was "Agreement" kept? There appears to be no explanation. --Horace 03:35, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, what is the explanation? --Horace 17:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Mockery

Ed, I'd like to discuss with you something from the mockery article. I'm fine with the fact if you want to attrible it as a liberal trait, even though I may disagree with it, but it seems to me using the phrase always is out of line. I've attempted to get rid of this particular statement, only to be reverted by RobS. I'd like to open a dialogue with you about it since you are the author of the statement. Thanks. --Colest 14:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==90/10==

Just surfin' the guidelines and came across the 90/10 rule under 'proposed CP policy'. It's your pet project, but I was wondering if, since it's a full rule now, would you like some sort of 'signed into law' addition? --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?


Mousterian

Why did you delete this page? it wasn't about other species, it was about a tool tradition. It is about freakin rocks!!Prof0705 12:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

  1. (Deletion log); 12:09 . . Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (deleted "Mousterian": no proof that other species are "our relatives")

I don't recall putting anything in there about species or relatives. What i put in there was information on what kinde of tools were used, how they were make etc. It was all cited information concerning lithic tools. If you saw parts on species, then get rid of that, but the rest of it was good info.Prof0705 12:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I still ask you to revert your destruction of that article. Mousterian is a categorial classification of tools just like Oldowan, Ascheulian, Aurignacian, Shawandan Stone Ground, and others. Prof0705 12:20, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd love to see an article about tools which people used before recorded history began. Just make sure that nothing in it is 'calculated' to offend Young Earth creationists. You'll have to pepper your article with disclaimers like According to archaeologists and Based on the theory of carbon dating.
If your article looks like a thinly disguised attack on religious faith, I'll probably delete it again. But if it explicitly mentions any assumptions which differ from the POV of Young Earth creationism, it will probably be okay.
You simply have to decide whether you want to make a trustworthy article or not. A trustworthy article will merit (or earn!) the trust of all readers, including those who begin with assumptions which are different from yours. --Ed Poor 08:56, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


Thanks! Just kidding

Why is does your article on Twelve Angry ruin the movie without a warning! I wanted to see that and it excellent from what I here but saying the audience never finds out how is convicted ruins it. Also don't say straight out this is an excellent movie. It may be so but thats an opinion and makes it sound like a review not an article. Thanks for your time.--BushRules12 22:43, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

  1. I didn't write the part that says the audience never finds out. I watched both versions, and if I recall correctly the tension about whether the jury convicts or acquits *is* relieved.
  2. A review is a kind of article.
  3. If you want to a add spoiler notice, go ahead. --Ed Poor 09:00, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


Notice

Please tell others about: Conservapedia:New Sysops Training Page Conservative 22:05, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Regarding cooperation

I just added an article on Vasili Mitrokhin. It is not bad, but could contain a wealth of information. I am postponing work on the theory of evolution article alternative submission because it will take a lot of time and may not go anywhere. Other new articles will help reach the 10,000 goal. If you have any references or information on Vasili Mitrokhin, please contribute. Thanks. HeartOfGoldtalk 02:47, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate the update. Also, your signature is regal and smart. What country are you the princess of again? ;-) --Ed Poor 14:14, 19 May 2007 (EDT)


"Proven" theories

Proof is for mathematics, Ed. All scientific theories are unproven, no reason to emphasise this one. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&curid=3327&diff=168262&oldid=164798 Kww 15:16, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

You're confusing math & logic with science. Theorems and theories are different, you know. --Ed Poor 17:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't think I'm guilty of confusion at all. I'm not the one labeling things "an unproved theory." No theory is ever proven. Kww 23:14, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, then I guess that means I'd be justified in saying that the Theory of Evolution has never been proven. :-) --Ed Poor 17:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Articles to be deleted.....

[[5]]Can we try to make some progress reforming the whole deal? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:46, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Politicization of science

Ed I know what you are trying to say, but the banning of DDT did not affect malaria sufferers, it was too late for them. However it did cause an rise in the number of cases. BrianCo 06:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know what you mean. If it caused a rise in the number of cases, then it affected them. --Ed Poor 06:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools