This summer I was hired to teach writing at a private school in New York City. If I tell you how to write an article, please don't edit war: I'm a senior editor here, because I know how to write encyclopedia articles.
"one of the greatest and most influential Conservapedia sysops" - Anonymous
I am first and foremost a believer in science, and yet I believe that God is the First Scientist. I believe Romans 1:20 provides a clue to the fact of God's Creation.
- I believe in being bold, a habit I learned to cherish at Wikipedia. But I also believe in correcting my mistakes.
I have made over 20,000 edits to Conservapedia, although a lot of these are merely quoted /factoidss.
- Years at Conservapedia: 11
- Years at Wikipedia: 16
- I started over 1,100 articles there.
- Years opposed to atheism: 40
- I maintain accounts at a few other wiki projects.
Some people regard me as a "poor, undereducated and easily led" religious man.
To Do List
More about me, myself and I
I am a SYSOP on this site, elected unanimously by the student board on my 6th day here.
True wikis have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy.
I learned the basics of PHP in May 2007 and created an online database for my church's missionary outreach effort in Harlem, NY. Plans to expand the database application to the regional or national level went nowhere, but I did get hired as webmaster of UpTV.org and did some consulting on a major overhaul on the http://www.upf.org website.
Q: Is this your personal blog, or what?!
A: No, but it just so happens that nearly every word I type, link I create, article or template I start - gains instant and widespread acceptance.
Q: Isn't that a bit arrogant?
A: Okay, I guess you're right. Perhaps I should be more humble.
Wikipedia and Conservapedia
There was a time when Wikipedia was a meritocracy, and I rose rapidly through the ranks then. I got Jimbo to create the Mediation and Arbitration committees, so he wouldn't have to be the sheriff all the time. I became the first elected bureaucrat, and pioneered the system whereby admins could enforce rules without having to take everything before a committee.
My only worry about Conservapedia is that it might make the equal and opposite mistake; it has certainly been accused of it, hundreds of times. But senior staff have been amazingly tolerant of opposing ideas here so far and I reason to hope they will continue to do so.
My interests include history, religion, and science.
I've also taught SAT math prep, so if your article has any errors in arithmetic or statistics, prepare for a shock. I might just delete your entire contribution.
I'm also pretty good at science, logic, history, etc.
If you have any trouble on the site, a question about my edits/blocks/redirects/protects etc. please post on my talk page or email me and I will address them ASAP. I am open to working with everyone who demonstrates a genuine will to improve this site through their work.
My user talk page has been vandalized countless times; I guess liberals are in denial and hate having to face their problems as much as any (other) addict.
Here are the most commonly violated principles of neutral editing at Wikipedia:
- It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.
- Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
- Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.
- Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising.
- A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.
- Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.
I am on probation at Wikipedia for trying to point out some of these problems and just might get my account blocked! :-)
Use Google to search for Ed Poor probation