User:Ed Poor
We look at this Son and see the God who cannot be seen. We look at this Son and see God's original purpose in everything created. For everything, absolutely everything, above and below, visible and invisible, rank after rank after rank of angels—everything got started in him and finds its purpose in him. He was there before any of it came into existence and holds it all together right up to this moment. - Colossians 1:16
Contents
My writing class in New York
I have no formal qualifications as a teacher: no certificate, no diploma. But many people like the way I write. My students' parents are satisfied with my instruction, and have told other parents to enroll their children in my class.
If you're impressed by my writing and editing here at Conservapedia, send me an email with your phone number. We can discuss enrolling your children.
- Years at Conservapedia: 17
- Years at Wikipedia: 22
- Years opposed to atheism: 47
My new articles (last 10 days only)
Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions
About yours truly
|
I am a "poor, undereducated and easily led" religious man. I have made over 15,000 edits to Conservapedia.
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.
Admin stuff
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.
Number of times my user page has been vandalized: 7 if you count my talk page
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.
But I didn't see the anti-elitism creeping up and choking the life out of the place. Larry Sanger was right.
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.
Etc.
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.
Ed Poor (talk • contribs • count)
Subpages
NPOV
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 [1]
