User talk:Ed Poor/15

Ed Poor on campus

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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? --KotomiT_{User 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. --KotomiT_{User formerly known as JessicaT} 22:04, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

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. --KotomiT_{User formerly known as JessicaT} 09:37, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Deconstruction

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

Done. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:09, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

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

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)

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)

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)

Ed, since you post to the "In the news" section of the Main page, I'm requesting your help with the [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions#New_Suggestion|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 [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions#New_Suggestion|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. --DeanS^talk 11:17, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

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. --DeanS^talk 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. --KotomiT^Konnichiha! 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! --KotomiT^Konnichiha! 14:11, 4 November 2008 (EST)

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)

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)

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)

Mr. Poor, I am a little concerned about the comment you have left on my talk page. To address each of your points in turn:

1 - I am afraid I am not sure what thread this is referenced too? Could you please direct me to where I have made a mistake, so I will not make the same error again.

2 - I address your concern about my science credentials above. It is by definition not necessary to have any credentials to be a scientist. I am unsure what you mean by the term "credentials" or why I should have to prove them to you personally, when the higher management of this website is able to verify that my account is registered to a University of Cambridge email address, and I am therefore a valid member of that University.

3 - I removed the statement "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." from the article on deceit because it did not cite a source, or demonstrate any context. Unless statements like this can be verified by a source then anyone can simply disprove them anecdotally. I, for one, attended a public school, and was taught that deceit is wrong.

"Don't come back" is unhelpful, and no way to encourage the productive contributions of new members.

I look forward to further discussion on this matter.

ConcernedScientist 12:29, 17 February 2009 (EST)

We'd like to discourage anonymous contributions. Unless you have a well-founded fear of persecution if your colleagues found out you were providing reliable science information to a conservative encyclopedia, we'd prefer you to contribute using your real name. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:06, 17 February 2009 (EST)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I wonder the same thing. Has this been resolved? DrSandstone 11:08, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Unblocked yesterday which you could have checked yourself. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)

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)

And just for clarification, its not so much that I believe the rumors, but that I wanted them put in perspective from someone "on the inside" so to speak. EternalCritic 10:42, 14 November 2008 (EST)

I should probably merge some of the above into Unification Church. Also, Marriage in the Unification Church needs to be merged. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)

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)

Their parents send them. Then they tell their friends about the class and their friends' parents send them. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:53, 14 November 2008 (EST)

It's best we call an end to this. Your hostility is evident, but disappointing nonetheless. Thank you anyways.-LawrenceA 14:28, 14 November 2008 (EST)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for adding the references to my project. I had forgotten to do it myself. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 12:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Funny joke, Ed! HelpJazz 12:45, 14 November 2008 (EST)

If I give you the wool, can you make me one, too? Bugler 12:46, 14 November 2008 (EST)

How do you like Kipling, my love? I don't know, you naughty boy - I've never kippled. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:47, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Any chance you can take a look at Conservapedia:AFD H4 Handy Recorder? Thanks mate. HDCase 13:19, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, the news item you deleted has sparked lots of discussion, which is exactly what a good news item does. "Renegade" is an odd choice by a President-Elect. Maybe it means something, maybe it doesn't ... but we let the reader decide.--Aschlafly 16:57, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Yeah, makes you wonder what he was thinking. I read an AP article speculating that he "must not have known" that renagado means someone who gives up his Christian faith to become Muslim. Gimme 'arf a mo' and I'll google it up again. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:00, 14 November 2008 (EST)

The AP has been giving a pro-Obama spin to everything for over a year. I don't expect it to stop now.--Aschlafly 17:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)

This probably isn't the place to discuss it, but Renegade does not mean one who converts from christianity to islam. It is related to a spanish word that means that. And most people would not know about the spanish word. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 17:18, 14 November 2008 (EST)

     17:11 	(Deletion log) . . Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Characteristic" (too advanced - i.e., Uncle Ed "doesn't get it")

Why did you delete it? There is no rule that says that only pages understood by Ed Poor can exist. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 17:13, 14 November 2008 (EST)

I haven't seen the original entry, but I'm willing to explain this fairly simple concept. --BRichtigen 17:15, 14 November 2008 (EST)

If group, ring, field, etc. are allowed to exist, characteristic should certainly be allowed to exist. -CSGuy 17:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)

And it is a interesting concept which should intrigue any math-oriented pupil: How often do I have to add one to get zero. --BRichtigen 17:22, 14 November 2008 (EST)

I can count on my fingers the number of times I've been wrong, so don't let this get to your head.

Er, on second thought, I'd have to take off my shoes and socks to count that high - so let's just all forget it! ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:33, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, you make new templates on a whim, so how about making (and properly documenting) a notice asking people to simplify the article, to drop on such articles instead of deleting them? Philip J. Rayment 08:31, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I am confused about the headline you posted here. Does the "they" in "they didn't provide video or a source" refer to the Huffington Post or to Fox News? RobNewberry 17:38, 14 November 2008 (EST)

I thought I had written that they didn't provide a video. Whoever accused her may have put the blame on someone. But no one has shown that Palin actually said it.

The point - which I should have made clearer - is that political opponents of Palin, most likely in the liberal/Democrat controlled media, simply made it up. Or twisted something terribly.

They've been pounding the drum of "dumb white girl" as much as they dared, the little sneaks. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:42, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Well, enough nonsense came out of Palin's own mouth on national television to make me suspicious that she isn't too bright. But I do agree that "unnamed sources in the McCain campaign" can be cover for "I am making this up". RobNewberry 17:50, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Yeah, can you believe Palin was so dumb that she thought FDR was President when the stock market crash hit in 1929 and that he went on television to talk to the American people. Oh, wait a minute, that wasn't Palin. Learn together 02:31, 15 November 2008 (EST)

• Yes, I see. Additional defamation by way of agreeing to a possibility. How utterly clever! (BTW, was merely looking for a pretext to say hello, Ed, my old friend.) --₮K^/Talk 01:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Welcome back, TK! --Ed Poor ^Talk 06:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)

• Thanks. You are invited to check out Radical Republicans and help flesh it out if you see omissions. I will need to be updated on the latest pitfalls/land mines, since you have returned earlier than I have. But for now, perchance to sleep! --₮K^/Talk 07:57, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I came across this last night, and realized I had forgotten about it since April. Could you head over there and help me out with it? Thanks, HelpJazz 13:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Not as old news

Ed, since you locked liberal myths and apparently approve the overlapping text, could you head on over to the talk page and explain why please? Thanks, HelpJazz 17:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Pretty recent news

I hate doing this right now, but a user (user:JohnD) emailed me to ask if you would reconsider his block. I won't pursue this any further, but I thought I could at least pass on his query. HelpJazz 22:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Please unblock him for me. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:23, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Can you limit the blocks to non-contributors and trouble makers? --Jpatt 14:19, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I am a "poor, undereducated and easily led" religious man. Just tell me what specifically you want me to do or avoid doing. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Just want to say we are now shorthanded in blocking due to Jinx's retirement. We need contributors with blocking rights. To block Bugler leaves us that more short handed. Peace! --Jpatt 15:39, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Bugler has been unblocked. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I owe you one! --Jpatt 16:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Dear CBI, In the future, could you please limit your blocks for negative personal comments to users that actually made negative personal comments? In case you are confused about what constitutes a negative personal comment, I will provide one: You're a moron Ed. LacyJohnson 14:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I suggest that "You Reread Moon"

Ed, your blind defense of TK is getting a little rediculous. Single-handedly reverting a conversation in which three sysops were participating (one of whom, Learn together, recently chastised you for being to public with private information!) hardly seems like the right action, when it's clear that you have such a strong conflict of interest. I hope you rethink your actions and revert your edit to my talk page. Either way, I won't be bothering you for at least 3 days, so you don't have to worry about any more touchy subjects appearing. HelpJazz 14:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not blindly defending anybody. I'm talking to the smartest person in the room, the one I think is most likely to listen to me. Others will also get a turn, but the "slow students" will just have to wait until I have time to deal with them. I appreciate the way you set a good example. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, I think you're forgetting the hard-won lessons that you, Andy, etc., SHOULD have learned long ago about TK. A few phrases should remind you. "Special Discussion Group." "Ed Wigg." "NightTrain." Why are you so quick to trust him again?-Emissary 15:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, "I'm talking to the smartest person in the room." And the one who is most useful and most fair. And the one you are sending away. Hopefully he is just calming down and will return. Think Ed, how many good editors do you want to get rid of? Do something Ed, before it's too late and all you have left are Bugler, TK and a load of parodists--LeonH 15:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)

• I am very content to be known by those who hate me! Keep up the good work! :D --₮K^/Talk 15:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Dear CBI, you wrote Don't just log in and make unilateral changes. And use good grammar, too.. I would like to point out that that the correct spelling is grammer. God, your writing class must blow. MikeHouston 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Must have been thinking of Kelsey Grammer. Merriam-Webster has grammar. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Is the subject non-encyclopedic, or just the way I had written it? I will rewrite it if it is possible to do so encyclopedically. Also, I could add the info to Affirmative Action President.

Do you think First Muslim President would be a useful article?

God bless, BHarlan 15:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Make these proposals at talk:Barack Obama. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Here you go! BHarlan 16:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Per, could you undelete? Does the software even allow it? BHarlan 16:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)

If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article'

For someone who supposedly teaches a writing class, your writing sure sucks. BarbJones 16:34, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Alack and alas, missie, if me writing don't please ye none, do not fash yerself about it. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, I don't want to get into any fights with people on the very contentious "B.Obama" page... but I wanted to let you know that stylistically, the "Birth Certificate" controversy paragraph is all over the place, and needs rewriting. Sentences about other issues of Mr. Obama's citizen ship are in the center of paragraphs about the legitimacy of the certificate, there is no clear direction each paragraph is moving, etc. Since you last edited it, I thought I'd let you know. I'm loath to edit, just cause it's really really really a "hot" topic and don't want to step on anyone's toes one way or the other. Maybe you'd consider cleaning it up for everyone? Thanks! --JeanJacques 20:19, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please propose a rewrite here. If I can use it, I'll stick it in. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:23, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks! that works. --JeanJacques 11:24, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Wow, things change fast around here. What I read last night is already totally rewritten. I would add this line about Obama's Kenyan Citizensihp, since it is unclear why he had (and has admitted to) Kenyan citizenship. "Because Obama's father was of Kenyan/British citizenship, Barack Obama was legally a dual citizen until he turned 18, at which point he would be required to choose citizenship. Since he did not denounce his US citizenship at that time, and did not swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982." Hope that makes sense.

It does. Pardon me if I let things cool down a bit before daring to make any insertions. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:43, 19 November 2008 (EST)

LOL, you are "pardoned". As I noted, that page changes faster than pop trends. I shall endeavor to be patient. --JeanJacques 11:45, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I understand it can help bring people to Christ, but I often hear from fellow believers since Jesus was a Jew, shouldn't we follow the laws of the Old Testament like Christ, as such I fear Messianic Judaism is causing the revival of the Ebionites. The thing is salvation is by faith only. Do you agree with salvation by faith alone? Do you think my fears are justified?--  Deborah (contributions) (talk) email me 11:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

These are controversial matters, and I wish I had attended seminary when I had the chance. Then maybe I would know how to answer these questions.

But I can say at least that the UC doesn't mandate the following all of the 613 rules in the Mosaic Law. These seen as outdated.

As for salvation, I need to explain at length. Unificationism has a concept of "spiritual salvation" which roughly corresponds to what you are calling "salvation by faith". But it even more strongly emphasizes "physical salvation", which is controversial: some groups even denounce this latter concept as non-Christian. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:22, 19 November 2008 (EST)

The UC is now on her "heresy list", using the disrespectful term "moonies".--PhilipV 13:19, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I'm not going to fight about that. It's her opinion. --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I am sorry for calling Unification Church members earlier Moonies, I got angry wasn't thinking--  Deborah (contributions) (talk)

email me 15:58, 19 November 2008 (EST)

<chuckle>You're not the only one angry at me today. My talk page has been vandalized and someone wrote a parody biography of me! :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Point taken about the writing on the wall. It was an admittedly tenuous connection, but I do try to get Bible references in where possible as I always think they might provide food for thought. (Daniel 5:5 for anyone reading this.)--CPalmer 11:38, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Good motivation, but a revelation from God is hardly in the same class as childish vandalism. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:55, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the hello Ed. See you in the cutting room. User page coming soon--RobertMarkH 14:41, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I was up all night and I had 10 puns I thought could beat yours. But when I checked again this morning, no pun in ten did. --KotomiT^{一遍死んで見る} 08:13, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Just chewing over some ideas, no axe to grind, and I have no interest in arguing for the article to be changed. I just like to share ideas =) It isn't impossible that Luke intended to criticise the priest and the Levite, but for a contemporary audience it would have been a little more clear cut: both the priest and Levite were required by Law, because of the ritual uncleanliness of a corpse, to absolutely give a wide berth to what they thought was a dead body. The Samaritan, however, was not bound by any such considerations, and upon investigating the body and finding him alive, he did what any compassionate human being would have done. The point being made is therefore more about loving one's enemy (in this case, the enemy Samaritan showing love for the traveller) than it is about the apparent disinterest of the priestly classes. Interestingly, Luke portrays himself as quite fond of the Samaritans in the gospels, as we read in Luke 17:11-19 of the cleansing of the ten lepers, of whom only the Samaritan afterwards thanks Jesus. There are some scholars who point to some of these parables as later additions (particularly as Jesus himself had warned against the Samaritans: "Enter no town of the Samaritans!") by the gentile Greek, Luke, who was always quite keen on stressing that non-Jews were better than Jews. Interestingly, the gentile church also chose Samaria as its first non-Jewish missionary territory, despite Jesus' prohibition. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 10:43, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Yes, of course, I had forgotten about the "touching the dead" aspect. On the other hand, if the victim was dead, he'd be unlikely to reach up and grab the priest. And how hard were the decontamination rituals anyway?

There's also the question of whether things like "no work on the Sabbath" applied in emergencies, e.g., your animal fell in a ditch.

Jesus may have been addressing multiple issues at one time with this parable. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:51, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, while mulling this over, it ocurred to me that there would also be the requirement to bury a dead body. If there is no one else around to do this, even the High Priest was obligated to defile his state of ritual cleanliness and bury it immediately. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 11:49, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, please tell me why you reverted my edit. According to the article, agnosticism is not atheism, and I know many people who hold this view as well. Why, then, would you present evidence of an atheist transgression as evidence of an agnostic transgression? This seems as silly as saying that since many Muslims don't drink, all Christians hate alcohol. Please reply. --JZim 16:13, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Also, while I'm at it, I would like to ask you to undo your recent revision of the Anne Rice article. Not liking somebody is NOT a valid reason for removing informative, encyclopaedic content about that person. Instead, it shows bias and censorship.--JZim 16:19, 22 November 2008 (EST)

The edit by JZim was correct. The links send to a characteristic of Atheist. give significantly less to charity than theists. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 16:22, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Thank you, Joaquín.--JZim 16:23, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Fix it for me then, please? --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:24, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, I think the whole section should be removed. It is irrelevant to the article.--JZim 16:26, 22 November 2008 (EST)

As you wish. Let's just not obscure the differences or similarities between agnosticism and atheism. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:34, 22 November 2008 (EST)

LoL - some crank pumps out a bunch of baloney and for speedy tagging it I get a block..? {{{1}}} Like my life will suddenly somehow become empty and void of meaning without the pulpit of CP. Lawl, Ed, lawl. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 17:11, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Here's the Larry Schweikart‎ article I wrote. Let me know what you think about it and improve it if you're interested. Dr. Schweikart is amazing! --DeanS^talk 17:52, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, I saw no need to block this user STOP I think he should be unblocked STOP Please consider this STOP HenryS 20:37, 22 November 2008 (EST)

• You got 3 words out of 21 right. STOP. :p --₮K^/Talk 20:44, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Okay, Henry, I will unblock him on your say-so. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:52, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I saw you told him to discuss, I think he should have a chance. Of course I saw him edit warring, that wasn't good. Hopefully he has learned his lesson. Do you know if we have a form of the 3rr rule? HenryS 20:55, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I know the difference between collaboration and just plain old stubborn POV-pushing. Remember, I wrote the article on POV pushing at Wikipedia. I was the foremost supporter of Jimbo & Larry's POV policy. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:58, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Yeah, you're probably right. Do whatever you think is best. HenryS 00:06, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Hi Ed,

I think you're already monitoring it, but I'm beating up on you over at Anne Rice, so I thought you might want to have a look. That was a big boo boo! Learn together 21:03, 22 November 2008 (EST)

So add back the parts I shouldn't have deleted. Same as at Messianic Judaism. It's all in the article history; just copy and paste. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:05, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I just wanted your ok first. After complaining you're stepping on people it wouldn't be very nice of me to step on you would it? ;-) Learn together 21:07, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Your shoes are soft. Step all you want. :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:09, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry if you thought my article on people choosing homosexuality was parody, as I didn't intend it that way. It's a genuine mystery to me- I was providing speculation, some of it admittedly thin, but in doing so, I was hoping to draw more people in to help answer my question. I feel that if we want to prevent future generations from heading down that path, we need to figure out why people make that choice in order to help them avoid it. I'd like to recreate the article, but am afraid of getting blocked if I do, so I'm asking you to let me ask my question. If their was a problem with the tone or any of the ideas I suggested, please tell me. I'm happy to take criticism of my work, if there are ideas there that seem completely unreal, let me know. So, can I try again with that? (I'll try to make sure it goes into the Mystery: category this time if that's any help.) JANorton 21:39, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Please block User:Tpall. He/she is inserting offensive parody into abortion-related articles.--CPalmer 11:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Blocked. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:54, 24 November 2008 (EST)

I don't want to pollute the Obama page as this has gotten off that topic. Are new users informed of the 90/10 rule when they sign up (I mean, is it presented right in their faces, rather than in the Rules section I fear few actually read through)? And is it possible to require something like the 10 contributions before chatter as you suggested? - Rod Weathers 12:05, 24 November 2008 (EST)

We assume that they read the Conservapedia:Guidelines. If you think some new users are genuinely unaware of the rules around here, you are welcome to try to clue them in.

Chatter per se is not a problem. It's talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions that we don't want (see talk pollution). --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:09, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, this sentence from your review of My Girl, is missing something. who is unable to speak, the girl? or the grandmother. Also, have you thought of using the talk page to say if you recommend the film to users here? That would be a great feature, since you are bothering to review these movies. "My Girl (1991) introduces Annette Chlumsky as Vada, a precocious 11-year-old girl who can't get any normal adult attention from Harry, her widowed undertaker father (Dan Akroyd); her grandmother and doesn't respond to anyone." Also, as this is CP, and a good reference for us, could you say what age group this is 1) aimed for, and 2) appropriate in your mind for. Thanks.--JeanJacques 17:42, 24 November 2008 (EST)

On the Obama page, you noted "This is not Wikipedia, and sysops may remove any information which is not related to the purpose of building a trustworthy encyclopedia." Am I then wrong in removing liberal troublemaker posts and should be leaving them for higher-ups? - Rod Weathers 12:05, 25 November 2008 (EST)

I trust your judgment on this, Rod. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:09, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks. I appreciate it. - Rod Weathers 12:17, 25 November 2008 (EST)

I was cruising for artwork and found that. I really liked it and it stirred something in me. Thanks! BradJohnson 17:20, 25 November 2008 (EST)

I merged them as you suggested, and it seems to work well, so tinker with the combined article as you see fit. - Rod Weathers 19:51, 25 November 2008 (EST)

I'll update the nanotechnology article as mentioned before making any other contributions here. Happy Thanksgiving! --DinsdaleP 09:38, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Sorry for the delay. Please tell us a lot about nanotechnology. I'm particularly interested on what bearing it has on intelligent design. Is God the premier Nanotechnologist? --

Not sure what you mean about 'parody' there's none in there. Perhaps you would be so good as to explain. I've only been studying this subject for the last 40 years and been actively involved for 30 years or so but I'm always ready to learn more about it. As for referencing, as I mentioned in the summary, this is a work in progress and I haven't had the time to work out how to use the system to post them all. As for your mention of Ancient Rome - there are no mentions of Mummers in Ancient Rome as far as I am aware. Re your comments about Philladelphia, I made a point in my post of mentioning that Mumming in England and Ireland has has nothing to do with Mumming in the USA. I know a lot about Mumming in the the British Isles but absolutely nothing about so called Mumming in America.

Your claim requires proof. First off, who are you? --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Sorry about that, forgot to put my signature on first time round. As to who I am, I'm someone who has been involved in performing Mumming plays in England since the 1980's and have been reading on them and other aspects of English Morris traditions - and been a Morris dancer - since the 1970's. Malakker 07:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Malcolm Akkers IS my real name and, as I have already said I will be providing references Malakker 07:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Excellent. I did some Morris dancing as a teenager, but I'm also interested in how things get started. I've found a scholarly source tracing Mumming to ancient Rome. Perhaps you were unaware of that.

One of the attractions to online encyclopedia writing for me, is that I learn so much so quickly by doing research. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Clearly my experience and knowledge of 40 years are wasted here. You've just completely trashed my work, even though I explained to you on this page that I was in the process of preparing the references, and replaced it with an article of dubious provenance containing suggestions on the origin of Mumming which have long ago been discarded by those who have looked at more than one web site related to the matter or have even the smallest iota of knowledge of the subject. I was under the impression that this project was aimed at increasing knowlege and helping children and other to learn accurate facts in a safe manner. Clearly I was wrong. Since you obviously know more about the Mumming in the UK than me, I suggest you finish the article and then it will fit perfectly with your preconceptions. Malakker 10:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Your work is still here, in the article history. Try not to slam the door on your way out. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:48, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, wouldn't your new articles be considered double coverage? They're already in the Barack Obama article, if it hasn't changed significantly since I last read it last night. Not trying to put a cap on your head of steam, just looking out. Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 11:00, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Done! Ed, are you the grandfather or the grandson?Bert Schlossberg 16:13, 27 November 2008 (EST)

My grandfather Ed Poor co-founded Grumman, the company whose Hell Cat downed the majority of Japanese fighters in WWII. Our family no longer has any connection with that company, though. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:30, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Could you please explain that, sir? Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about. Sincerely, JY23 16:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Hi, I believe that in Australia Football means Aussie rules football , and they refer to soccer as soccer. Markr 11:53, 28 November 2008 (EST)

If so, there's probably a concise way to say so. Like, "In America and Australia, "football" refers to American and Australian variants. Elsewhere, it means soccer."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed_Poor (talk)

Actually it's not as simple as that. In Victoria and probably SA and WA football refers to Aussie rules. In NSW and QLD it is used interchangeably for all "codes", i.e. rugby, rugby league, Aussie rules, and soccer. JimP 22:42, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I didn't think it was simple. Can you make a disambiguation page, or should we put all the definitions in our general football games article? --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:42, 29 November 2008 (EST)

In April, you moved Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power into its author's user space, but it got moved back a couple of days later. Should it be kept as is, deleted, or moved somewhere else?--CPalmer 18:31, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Users should not create duplicate pages. I reduced it to a redirect. Thanks for the tip. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:02, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Personally, if it were me, I would archive, and restore the TOC.  ;-) --₮K^/Talk 20:39, 29 November 2008 (EST)

sorry if I stepped on one of your articles, I saw the red link and thought it might be interesting .. Markr 16:27, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, they're not "my" articles. I like planting seeds, but I don't mind if others cultivate the tree. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:37, 1 December 2008 (EST)

When you create new pages, would it be possible for you to add a category? A few editors have recently put a lot of effort into getting the uncategorized pages list down to zero (from well over a thousand!), so it would be good if we could now work on keeping the number as low as possible. Thanks--CPalmer 07:17, 1 December 2008 (EST)

I'll try to remember, but forming new habits is hard for middle-aged guys like me. I hope you will continue to follow me around and categorize any articles I fail to categorize. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:36, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Certainly will (though not in a stalking way), and thanks.--CPalmer 08:40, 1 December 2008 (EST)

If you do it for the next 4 weeks, that would be Christmas stalking. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:44, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Earlier, you told me that you wrote the article on POV pushing at Wikipedia (the bold text was yours). Is this an exaggeration or did you really write it? HenryS 20:23, 1 December 2008 (EST)

I wrote this part of it: [1]

POV pushing is not permitted on Wikimedia servers. The purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create an unbiased and comprehensive encyclopedia which makes the world's knowledge freely available to all people.

It is often necessary to examine a topic from more than one perspective. This is especially so with controversial topics, such as politics, morality, and religion.

But many people come to Wikipedia unaware of its neutrality policy (Wikipedia:NPOV) or simply to not wish to abide by it. They routinely and deliberately seek to evade, circumvent and undermine this policy by creating and editing articles so that they show only one point of view.

Probably the reason they do this is that they believe that a neutral comparison of the views they advocate will look bad in comparison with opposing views. And the best way to win an argument is to prevent the other side from getting any time to make their argument. Failing that, just make them look bad (ad hominem) or distort their views.

A major failing of Wikipedia all along has been the haphazard or lackadaisacal enforcement of the neutrality policy. The result is that a climate exists where it is easier for POV pushers to win, than for the rest of the community to stop them.

No solution to this problem is known at this time.

An attempt was made to delete it, but I was able to get the article moved to my userspace there. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:54, 1 December 2008 (EST)

I'll bet the policy is not being used the way you intended. HenryS 21:03, 1 December 2008 (EST)

No, a new provision called "undue weight" was set up. This allows those in the majority to deleted any information which supports a minority view, on the grounds that to do otherwise would give the minority "equal validity" with the majority. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

When it comes to traditional Biblical scholarship on topics like David and Jonathan, reading the original page on WP (see history) you would have thought that that was the minority view. Gagnon cannot even be referred to as a scholar.

Cheers for reverting that vandalism on liberal ideology. It's disappointing to see such juvenile behaviour from any end of the political spectrum. Underscoreb 18:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Hi Ed, I'm really confused - I suggested an edit on the Talk page for Liberal ideology and notified you about it here. Then when you didn't respond I went ahead with the edit, but now (less than a week later) I can't find evidence of it anywhere! There's no longer any record of it in the history for that page, plus my comments seem to have been deleted from the Talk page and here as well. Would you be able to explain what's going on? Underscoreb 04:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Forgive me for butting in, but I know what the problem must be - there was a server problem and disk crash recently, and a week's worth of edits were unfortunately lost. So, an irritating situation, but nothing malicious. If you redo the edit it shouldn't be a problem.--CPalmer 04:53, 29 January 2009 (EST)

If you could let me know whether you got my email or not, that would be great. Thanks! -- JArneal 22:37, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I will take that most recent edit on your user page as a yes for my question.-- JArneal 18:13, 5 December 2008 (EST)

We're obviously dealing with some very sharp minds here. What I don't understand is the attraction of Conservapedia who those who aren't in sympathy with US conservative thought. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:41, 5 December 2008 (EST)

TTerm recently edited the Megalomania page to say this:

Not all megalomaniacs have a lot of power, however. Many are ordinary people who take a somewhat pathetic pleasure in wielding whatever measure of power they may have. This can be as small-scale as, for example, a bartender arbitrarily refusing to serve customers he does not like, or a librarian rigorously enforcing the rules if a reader is a minute late returning a book. Or the idiot son of a conservative activist running his stupid little wiki like some kind of cult, where anyone who disagrees with him slightly gets banned.

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Megalomaniac"

Strike him with your mighty banhammer!

.....this

--₮K^/Talk 06:50, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Hi, Ed. I noticed your deletion of the Axiom of Choice article. I'm relieved that you didn't protest Andy's restoration of it, since it's an important article to have, even if the subtleties of it are likely beyond the high school level. On the other hand, I also understand your interest in it and the motivation for the deletion. Unfortunately, certain people have used this advanced topic as a platform from which to cause trouble. They're taking advantage of the limited understanding of the topic in our community to fudge the debate over it, misrepresenting the editors involved. Once some doubt was sown, they've gone on to draw related complaints from all corners (see how the Desk/Abuse page has exploded with complaints lately). It seems I was too lenient in my initial dealings with them on the AC talk page, but don't worry about the Axiom of Choice; Andy and I are on the case. -Foxtrot 05:09, 5 December 2008 (EST)

You have moved the Dense subset page from the math category to the "set theory" category. From the contents of that latter category, I can see what you want it to contain. Dense subsets don't belong there. While the word "subset" appears in the name, density is a topological property, not a pure set-theoretic one.

While I have your attention, you might want to look at recent stuff I wrote in Talk:Axiom of Choice and Talk:Boolean algebra. In short, what you are proposing for bringing math down to the barest fundamentals is way too ambitious.

SamHB 13:45, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry, I was confused about what was actually going on with dense subsets. It wasn't a category move per se that was causing the problem. It's just in the wrong category. When I look at the set theory category page, I see a bunch of things about esoteric, advanced, graduate-level set theory, and one thing about undergraduate calculus. I don't know what category you want dense subsets to be in, but it it doesn't belong next to Schroder-Bernstein. (Where do we get all those articles? Talk about grad students showing off!!!)

SamHB 13:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)

No matter who deep or esoteric it is, if you can't explain it to a 10-year-old, it's probably wrong anyway. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Uhhhh, I think that's way too strong a statement. I know you like to take the position that, if you can't explain it to a 10-year-old, it shouldn't be in CP. And I can relate to that view. But saying it's wrong is a little too far. In any case, you and I (and others) have been around the block on this issue, and we understand what's going on. Tell you what: You write an article on general relativity that a 10-year old can understand, and I'll write one on dense subsets. We'll see who finishes first!  :-) Just kidding about relativity, but I'm not kidding about dense subsets. I can write such an article. (The existing article fails badly in this regard.) I accept your challenge, sir! SamHB 21:41, 5 December 2008 (EST)

OK, here it is! See User:SamHB/Dense subset. Not polished very well; sort of a rush job; editing (for us peons) will probably shut down real soon. SamHB 23:14, 5 December 2008 (EST)

General relativity? You're on. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:51, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Martin Luther King, Jr. makes the link blue. Human 22:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I couldn't find this link on his user page, but I just created a redirect which hopefully solves the problem. -Foxtrot 22:08, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Shall I link the 2 red categories to the Movies category? I'd imagine though that this movie is the only one befitting the Movies with a gay cupid category. WesleyS^Hello! 23:38, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, thanks. I plan to add several more movies to Category:Movies with a gay cupid. By the way, if you put a colon between the [[ and the Category, you can create a link to the category page - but it does not assign the page you place the link on, to that category. --Ed Poor ^Talk 05:32, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I did not know that. Thanks, Ed! WesleyS^Hello! 11:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)

It was Andy who put that quote. Revision as of 21:12, 17 May 2008 --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:19, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Ed-you might want to delete and restore Deletedpage--it is 50th in the list of popular pages. Thanks! Duncan^Talk 08:14, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Why? --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:16, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I check my email periodically. If I get any complaints about Bugler or TK or you or Philip, I will take action. Now stop distracting me from my volunteer work. I kicked a little boy out of class yesterday for being a tattletale. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:54, 12 December 2008 (EST)

So you are saying that if you receive a complaint via email then you will take action? --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 11:07, 12 December 2008 (EST)

No, Tim, I don't think he will. [snip] Ed, and Conservapedia too, are lost causes. The parodists have won.-CaraJ 11:10, 12 December 2008 (EST)

I suggest that you lighten up on the accusations. I'm guessing that you are gone already, but if not, then you won't last long with accusations like that. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 11:13, 12 December 2008 (EST)

I know I am sticking my neck out, but was that not a bit harsh for him? He has done some good work up to now, which should count in his favour - he might have just made a mistake. Please reconsider - we need good editors - there are so few around lately, it seems. --KotomiT^{ohayougozaimasu} 09:34, 12 December 2008 (EST)

It will take me weeks to undo the subtle damage he has done. I will start with Eowyn and Grima - niece and adviser, respectively to King Theoden of Rohan. --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:36, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Gomen! I had not realised he was actually vandalising the Tolkein articles. --KotomiT^{ohayougozaimasu} 09:43, 12 December 2008 (EST) As far as I can see, He wasn't vandalizing the Tolkien articles - most of which he had created. There is - a minor - quibble of interpretation over the role of Eowyn. When I tried to find a resolution in the internet, I found much of debate instead, nothing clear cut, IMO (and nothing to important). I understand both positions Tolkiendil's and Ed Poor's , but Ed Poor enforces his view via his blocking rights.

And then there are other minor points. For instance, have a look here:

Tolkiendil had written:Herugrim was the sword of King Théoden of Rohan. It had been given to Gríma Wormtongue for safekeeping, but was returned to Théoden when he rode to war.

Ed Poor changes this to: Herugrim was the sword of King Théoden of Rohan. It had been kept by Gríma Wormtongue along was "many other things that men had missed", but was taken back to Théoden when he rode to war.

Ed Poor claims in his edit comment: No record that Grima was "given" this sword - or anything else for that matter

In Book III, Chapter VI, "The King of the Golden Hall". we read:

[...] At the moment Háma came again from the hall. Behind him cringing between two other men, came Gríma the Wormtongue. His face was very white. His eyes blinked in the sunlight. Háma knelt and presented to Théoden a long swarod in a scabbard clasped with gold and set with green gems.

'Here, lord, is Herugrim, your ancient blade', he said. 'It was found in his chest. Loth was he to render up the keys. Many other things are there which men have missed.'

'You lie,' said Wormtongue. 'And this sword your master himself gave into my keeping.'

'And he now requires it of you agaian,' said Théoden.'Does this displease you?'[...]

So Grima - as thief and a liar - claimed in front of Théoden that he was given the sword, and Théoden doesn't deny this. Unnecessary quibble in my opinion: I think that Tolkiendil is right, but Ed Poor's version isn't wrong, altogether. But I think that Ed Poor is very wrong in the way he tries to enforce his version.

Tolkiendil has made countless edits on the Lord of the Ring. I daresay that he knows more about Tolkien than any of us, including Ed Poor. But perhaps that's the rub: Maybe Ed Poor doesn't like the idea that someone has a greater knowledge of this subject than he does.

Of course, there may be a few honest mistakes made by Tolkiendil. The infinite ban because Ed Poor dislikes some of his interpretations, or because he added to many details, seems to be absolutely unjustified - and the instantaneous deletion of Tolkiendil's user page just undignified! OTOH, I don't think that one should take the whole middle-earth universe to serious, it should be fun!

BTW, Tolkiendil seems to be right with his categorization of the Eskimo-Aleut languages, too.

I have said this a couple of times: This high-handed approach to us common editors destroys the spirit which is necessary to be a volunteer on this project. Here, the work of months was disregarded in seconds!

Therefore, I appeal to Ed Poor to lift the block of Tolkiendil. Though I don't know whether this action is futile, but I hope that Tolkiendil rejoins us editors though he was treated in such a capricious way.

--BRichtigen 08:17, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Is Rivendell a city? If not, then who really knows more about Middle-earth?

Giving a lot of trivial or arcane details is of absolutely no use to an encyclopedia project, if serious errors are introduced. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:21, 13 December 2008 (EST)

If there were acts of vandalism, I'd expect you to revert the most blatant ones first.

What have you done so far?

• you named Rivendell an elven residence. It's a better term than city. But calling it city isn't vandalism - you asked: How can you call such a small place a "city"? Well, first, we don't know how big the place, second, city is about importance, not only about size: I once visited a chartered city with 47 inhabitants...
• in general, you altered some entries on Middle-earth locations. As far as I can see, the only reason you gave to erase information stated by Tolkiendil was that it was to much, not that it was wrong!
• you changed the article on Eowyn. You claim that this is a key point, but there seems to be only concurring views...

• you moved Ent (Middle-Earth) to Ent.

I can't see how any of your edits support the view that Tolkiendil vandalized these articles.

--BRichtigen 07:36, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Did I say "vandalism"? I thought I said "subtle damage". Endless talk like this wastes everyone's time: particularly your own. We need good articles, if you have the time to help us make them. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:51, 15 December 2008 (EST)

• my fault: you blocked me for "supporting a vandal" - naturally, I assumed there was some vandalism.
• you would get more good articles if you stopped to repel productive editors.
• your articles on Middle-earth just seem to prefer one interpretation of the LOTR over another. IMO no improvement...

--BRichtigen 10:32, 16 December 2008 (EST)

All good points. Maybe I need to lighten up a bit. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:34, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I'm afraid this lightening up comes to late for Tolkiendil. That's a pity... BRichtigen 13:00, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Would it be possible to have the Stalin entry unprotected? There are some minor details in the lead I'd like to correct. --sam(m)y 13:59, 14 December 2008 (EST)

I have erased my comment here as I think it best that we move on and pull together in harmony. Bugler 05:27, 15 December 2008 (EST)

I see you just wrote an essay and wanted to ask whether essay-writing is only for Sysops(or Admin? I don't know who's what yet) or can the regular user pen one too?--SJames 07:14, 15 December 2008 (EST)

SJames, I don't know if Ed will be around much this week, as he is busy with a project, but Essay's can be written by anyone, please follow the MOS (Manual of Style). Use the {{essay}} template, and of course put it in the essay space please. --₮K^/Talk! 15:31, 15 December 2008 (EST)

I see that you are making some improvements to the Jacquard loom, Hollerith, and Babbage articles. As few suggestions -- basically, these 3 things are about the basis of computers, and their importance needs to be recognized.

Babbage deserves all the credit we can give him. "Just one invention"? Yes, but what an invention! I think the thing he needs to be credited with is conceiving the "first automatically sequenced digital computing machine". His difficulties in bringing these devices to practical fruition are well known. But the fact remains that he conceived the idea that one can do computation digitally, and that the device can control its own sequencing under control of the data. The path from that to the computer you are looking at now is VERY CLEAR. And it wasn't just pie-in-the-sky fantasizing. He did build part of the difference engine. It has since been completed, from his design diagrams. People wouldn't have done that if they didn't think it was a historic machine. And the "analytical engine", while construction was never even begun, underlies all modern software engineering. The first algorithm coded for it was by Lady Lovelace, who is therefore regarded as the world's first computer programmer. She wrote commentary on the implications of using data to effect control that is still quoted today.

Hollerith's first name was Hermann. I think that's the right spelling. It wasn't just "apparatus that compiled statistics". He automated the data processing for the U.S. census. It was the first use of automatic data-processing equipment for the census (or, probably, for anything else, though I'm not sure.) His device use holes punched in cards! Hence he invented the "punch card" that was a staple of computing for so long. In fact, "IBM cards" were often called "Hollerith cards". He invented that! By the way, I think his company was bought up by some upstart called IBM. Not sure about the details. Bit of trivia: The size of the card was chosen to match the size of the dollar bill at the time, 1923. Dollar bills have since gotten smaller. My info on all this is quite fuzzy. I can look up more details if you want, but this is a rush message.

Jacquard loom: The interesting thing about this is that it controlled the weaving process by reading holes punched in cards. This concept, originally intended for making complex tapestries, was the intellectual basis for the work of both Babbage and Hollerith. In particular, Babbage was inspired by the loom's ability to make complex "control" decisions based on "data" read from the cards.

This is the basis for computers!

SamHB 15:12, 15 December 2008 (EST)

I am aware of all that; software engineering is my profession, and I studied its history quite a bit. You want to go ahead and put that information into the appropriate articles? --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:59, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Hi Ed,

When we create categories, we do so with capitalization, so it should be Polish Mathematicians and Scientists. But actually, in this case, I'm not sure it's a good category for us. Our readers aren't going to know to look under Polish anything as the nationality of the person in question is usually obscure. They just want to see a list of mathematicians and/or scientists. If we are going to create subcategories, may I recommend doing so by varying professions or disciplines within these categories instead of nationality?

Thanks,

Learn together 13:27, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I don't object to a conservative analysis of any particular popular-culture project. I do object to a straight copy from Wikipedia and especially one in which the one doing the copying didn't even check an elementary thing such as whether we had all the templates that the original article invoked!--TerryH^Talk 14:20, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Right. In fact, we are not allowed to copy from Wikipedia anyway, because we don't agree with their license. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:00, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Hi Ed. Looking at the article pharaoh, it could use fleshing out, and seperating the King List to a seperate article to keep a longer article to a readable length. Major change to an existing article, so wanted to run it past you first. Let me know what you think. Cheers. PS: Need to upload images, can you fix for me? --Krysg 09:01, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Go ahead and flesh it out, and give me a list of images you need. --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the formatting, I have to admit I often forget to add the brackets and other items beyond the formulas.--Able806 10:19, 17 December 2008 (EST)

As our nation's first black president said, "We're all in this together." :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:25, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Hi Ed, should the articles be written in the passive? I just wanted to make sure.--Able806 11:02, 18 December 2008 (EST)

There's no particular rule about that. My only concern about style is to get the information to the reader as quickly as possible. Many of our readers are in a hurry. They don't want to wade through a lot of dross to get at the main points. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)

The article "modus tollens" should probably be deleted. It belongs as a part of the "symbolic logic" article, not on its own - it's just one of the standard permutations of modus ponens, after all. Thanks - StevenK 15:00, 17 December 2008 (EST)

You were right to block me for my toad-brains remark--it was ill-considered, though I did mean it as a compliment to the addressee. I hope you'll give me enough time here/now to repost the complimentary part of that particular edit, minus the inappropriate part. However, I should point out that contrary to your edit/block remark, it was not my first edit--a small bit of investigation would have made clear that I've made a large number of edits, albeit under different names. Still, I must compliment you for your good-natured approach here--anyone else would have banned me for far longer than three days.--JamesX/Ross, etc...

I have a whole lot that I would like to discuss with you about math articles. I've been reluctant to do it because I'm keenly aware that (1) the 90/10 rule makes editing talk pages extremely "expensive", and (2) the last person to suggest making a discussion page for this topic got banhammered and reverted. So I apologize in advance for the length of this; there's a lot of material to cover.

Expanding on your comments at Talk:Axiom_of_Choice#Note_to_Ed_Poor_about_Pedagogy, we need to be flexible about the "one size fits all" principle.

1. There are topics which really require multiple articles to deal with the different levels—a single article would be too long and intricate to do the job.
2. There are topics that, IMHO, are best handled by a single article, divided into clearly-marked sections at different levels of expertise.
3. There are topics that really have only one level of expertise that we should handle, and that therefore should have just one homogeneous page. Derivative is an example. If you're not ready to read about calculus, there's nothing we can put in a page that will help you.

You mention the various "introductory" articles at WP. This is a consequence of category 1. I submit that we have far less need of category 1 than WP does. In fact, I can't think of any such mathematical topics off the top of my head, though I'm sure there are some. WP has an article "Introduction to general relativity", and the real article. But the latter is for the world-class experts that use WP. We have no need for that. We at CP are not catering to people who need to know about Calabi-Yau manifolds or frame-dragging.

Category 2 is what I would like to argue for. I believe that a lot of the inappropriate targeting that you and I both have found objectionable in existing articles is due to failure to segregate the material properly. There are topics for which this is the right treatment. They can be handled by using multiple instances of the templates within one page. Separating into multiple pages makes the individual pages too short and unconnected. My page on User:SamHB/Continuity is an example that I have put together to illustrate this. It can be understood at 3 levels: smooth graph, limit, and topological open sets. The page User:SamHB/Dense subset is another example in which I think the approach is reasonable. I'm not suggesting widespread use of this technique—I only used it twice in 14 articles.

Of course, most articles are in category 3. They should still use the templates. Some of these articles are at high levels with no corresponding article at a lower level. For example, if you are not ready for the abstract mathematical reaoning of User:SamHB/Group (mathematics), there's just no article about it that will be appropriate for you.

I would really appreciate it if you would look at the articles I have written (yes, it's a lot of material, and you are very busy) and comment on it. I look forward to collaborating with you and the other contributors on making a high-quality mathematics presentation.

You mentioned the belief that we need about 3 to 5 levels of expertise. We're generally in agreement. I think the 4 templates that we have now (Math-e, Math-m, Math-h, and Math-a) seem to work well.

You also mentioned the possibility ("I'll probably move this thread to the appropriate page") of making a discussion page for these issues. I will watch for such an activity, and probably participate.

SamHB 15:44, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Have you read the 90/10 rule? There is no fixed formula, and useful comments don't "count against you". Where could you have gotten that idea?

Math needs to be presented in a way that any intelligent reader can understand it. I'm not interested in math articles requiring straight A's in 12th grade math, until we've gotten basic articles in good shape. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:42, 7 January 2009 (EST)

...and, please, check your mail :-) BRichtigen 11:43, 25 December 2008 (EST)

I have added the following reply to your note on my talk page.

Ed: I don't understand your comment at all. The only things I ever said about math was the comment above about "The other 'block magnet' is complex numbers, right?" and "I'd help if I knew more math". If you look at my contributions, you will see that my interest is in chemistry. I don't see how you can say that I am "concerned only with the most advanced math topics".

Either you are confusing me with someone else, or you are concerned that my chemistry contributions are too advanced. I take the latter concern, if that's what it is, very seriously. I have cleared the addition of the "density" and "number of stable isotopes" fields in the element template with both you and Jallen. And I have discussed the topic of accessibility in great detail on this page. If you believe that my contributions are not at the right level, please let me know, and I will take your concerns seriously. I'm here to make accessible contributions.

ElizabethK 19:09, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Nothing is too advanced for an encyclopedia, as long as it is introduced properly. If writers deliberately make material inaccessible, that would not be good. If you need help writing an introduction, ask others to help you. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:38, 4 January 2009 (EST)

--₮K^/Talk! 23:21, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Ed,

Not disputing your change in categorization, but I confess to being curious about it. Why would Clymer be less of a "Founding Father" than others, given that he signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?

I freely confess: he's not one of the Founders about whom I have a lot of knowledge, so I'm assuming you know something I don't.

Apart from idle curiosity, I'm also wondering if changes to the Founding Fathers article will be necessary; I'm just going down the list of red links there. --Benp 20:18, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Ed,

If you have the time, I'd really appreciate some guidance in this. I'd like to go ahead and get all the redlinks in Founding Fathers taken care of, but I don't want to create a lot of work for somebody else. If you can explain to me how you'd like to see the various names categorized, at least in a general sense, it would be extremely helpful. Thanks in advance! --Benp 13:56, 4 January 2009 (EST)

AlexC's edits are suspect. Look at the AIDS talk and my response. His claim on the HIV page is also false since the scientific community does not recognize nor is there any publication supporting the claim. HIV does fulfill Koch's postulates for causing AIDS. The fringe group (less than 50 people world wide) that makes this claim that HIV and AIDS are not linked has not the scientific background to make the claim. The problem behind this is that this kind of false information allows for the spread because people fall under the impression that even with HIV they will not get AIDS. I would not consider a controversy since so few people would even dispute it, and those that do have been linked to other questionable practices.--Able806 14:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I've created Scientific controversy over the cause of AIDS to address this question. Can we start by stating whether the "links" of the "fringe groups" are unrelated to the soundness of their arguments? --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:06, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Sure we can set up a case, I do not know if it would be fair though, lol. To allow for both sides to present, someone with equal understanding of the fringe group would have to provide information supporting their position, which could be a challenge.--Able806 14:11, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I am fairly good at giving a layman's view of complex science - or finding someone else who can and simply quoting them. But you didn't answer my question: Can we start by stating whether the "links" of the "fringe groups" are unrelated to the soundness of their arguments? --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:13, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Sure, we can start there. If you would like to add some of the links, I can source the publications and provide the counter. Should we do this in a debate style?--Able806 14:29, 7 January 2009 (EST)

If you're not going to answer my question, then no collaboration is possible, despite my initial enthusiasm. Thanks, anyway. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:35, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Ed, I am sorry, I thought I had answered your question. I said I would provide the evidence that links of the fringe groups are unrelated.--Able806 14:39, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I don't understand your answer. You said that those that dispute the idea that HIV causes AIDS "have been linked to other questionable practices." I wanted to know whether you agree or disagree that the "links" of the "fringe groups" are unrelated to the soundness of their arguments. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:46, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, I am sorry. I did misunderstand you. To answer your question, yes and no. I tend not to have issue with people's associations as long as their association is not a conflict of interest. In some of the cases with the fringe groups there are situations where the members of the group receive some financial recuperation due directly to their stance. This would be a conflict of interest since the compensation is not based on providing clear evidence but by providing biased results.--Able806 14:55, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Okay, and how much money to people get who accept the HIV/AIDS hypothesis? (I can ask the same question about global warming theories.)

But I don't think we're going to be able to work together, unless (like me) you believe that a person's source of income is irrelevant to the soundness of their arguments. For example, Newton was a Creationist, but no one cares because his scientific ideas worked out (see Reproducibility of results). --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:22, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I am not sure exactly what you are getting at. Funding for research generally comes from three sources, government, academia and private. Government researchers are paid very little for the work that they perform since they are on the GS scale (at NIH most PhDs make between 35-40K; this excludes the lab heads and directors of course). Academic researchers (those whose funding is strictly grant based) are often paying more for materials than actually gaining any profit from their work (depending on the endowment of the university some professor's base pay is enough, however often the researchers have to augment their incomes 60-75K is the general pay scale for associate professors). The private researchers are where the profit for the scientist is the greatest, and also where the bias is more heavily introduced (Pay for most PhDs is in the range of 85-120K). For most HIV researchers they get very little in terms of profit since many of the cell lines and reagents are very costly. Unless the researcher is in private industry chances are they are not making much of a profit for the research they are performing. It costs almost 1 billion dollars for a pharmaceutical company to bring a drug to the market, which the patents are owned by the company not the researcher who developed it, so when the company does start making a profit from the drug it does not go to the researcher as much as it does the stock holders. What I mentioned above in regards to the HIV denial is that many work for private groups where the degree is used by the group to push the agenda more so than actual supported research. I keep an open mind when it comes to research (if the evidence supports the claim not a problem) however all research should be taken with a grain of salt and not accepted at face value. I am open to people's views as long as they have the evidence to support their claim, just as I would expect when I make a claim. I hope this answers your question and that we can work together on this. I did find it interesting some of the directions that the HIV/AIDS denial groups take and would have no problem doing the research to show the issues with their views (if there are any).--Able806 15:28, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Fair enough. How about starting with an article on Funding for scientific research based on your comments above. Our readers would love to be able to learn here - which they cannot discover even at Wikipedia - the influence of money on scientific research. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:01, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Very interesting proposition. I guess I could put together something about grants and the gov sector research.--Able806 16:07, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Ed, as per the Category:Conservapedia category redirects talk page, I'm to contact you about sending EdBot on a mission. All of the categories with the redirect template have had their pages put in their proper place (per the redirect template), except Category:Flags of the World, wherein all of the pages are locked. These categories can now be deleted. Thanks! WesleyS^Hello! 16:59, 8 January 2009 (EST)

How do I go about doing a disambig. for a term for which there is already an article? (I have started "anthem" but find the Ayn Rand novel has beaten me to it.) I don't want to have to type "anthem (music)" or whatever at every link. I would, of course, prefer that the musical definition be the primary term and the book relegated to "Anthem (novel)" but that would be too logical. I am also running into kings and popes etc that already have a namesake described. AlanE 14:14, 11 January 2009 (EST)

To disambig a page, use the "small" template at the top of the screen, type "For the _______, see ________." and there you have it! I already did that for the page you mentioned. JY23 14:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, and thanks. I know about that... I do that myself sometimes. I suppose what I am getting at is that an article on a major part of church services in many denominations of the English speaking world has to go through a fairly obscure Ayn Rand novel to be accessed. (Already there are mentions in various articles to church anthems - I just haven't linked them yet.) If it's got to be like that it should be the other way round. And what do I do about Henry I of France, and all the other kings, emperors etc? I can't just tack 'em onto the start the Angevin Henry I article. The anglophobes would hate that. AlanE 14:39, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Good point. Could you, on my talk page, if you would, make a list of all the Henry Is? I'm farily experienced in making disambig pages. JY23 14:44, 11 January 2009 (EST)

It sounds like what you want is:

• Anthem (book) - by Ayn Rand
• anthem - the music thing

If that's what you want, I can help you by moving each article into place. If there are any ambiguous links, we can fix them. There's no need to create a disambiguation page in advance, most of the time. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:38, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, Ed, it is... and thank you! And since I wrote the above I have "learnt" how to "disambiguate" after the act (so to speak.) However, I am just calling in at the moment. We are in a locust-like plague of interstate and overseas visitors at present. My study is an overflow dormitory for the spare bedrooms, and I am suddenly chief tour guide, local expert and even chef. I should be free of them in a few days. I am taking a few days off from CP. OK? AlanE 17:13, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I'm sorry. I didn't think to put book in the article title. ReneeStJ 16:31, 16 January 2009 (EST)

That's okay. Pick any title you want for your new articles. In the rare case when it has to be moved, an admin will do this for you. Keep writing! :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:37, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Hi Ed. I noticed you moved Kernel to Kernel_(geometry), citing "not to be confused with operating system kernels like Linux". The article actually already had the definition for operating systems, as well as a definition used in algebra, however the formatting was not clear. If you move the page back to Kernel, I can spruce it up with some nice disambiguation formatting. -Foxtrot 22:17, 18 January 2009 (EST)

The main thing is to place information where readers can find it easily. Advanced math concepts - inaccessible to 99% or more of our readers - should not be "in the way". --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:21, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Okay, since there are now two separate pages, I added a disambiguation page at kernel linking to them both. PS, can you move operation system kernel to operating system kernel? I think that was a typo. -Foxtrot 22:40, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Since the Kernel_(geometry) covers both the algebraic and geometric notions of kernel could we rename this article to Kernel_(mathematics)]] or perhaps split the article into Kernel_(geometry) and Kernel_(algebra)? AndyJM 09:23, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Please move Visible Light to Visible light? Thanks. -- JArneal 23:07, 3 February 2009 (EST)

• Yes, Ed would have been happy to do so, and since I have his proxy, I did it. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 00:57, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks, TK! Maybe I should ask you next time... -- JArneal 03:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)

No need to be that drastic. I knew from talking with Ed that he was extremely busy, and didn't want to hang you up. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 03:24, 4 February 2009 (EST)

In Google Search, the entry for ""Alger Hiss - Conservapedia" was changed today from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Alger_Hiss" to misdirect to the nonexistent Web page "http://www.conservativeencyclopedia.com/wiki/Alger_Hiss." Is there a way to ask Google to restore the correct link? FOIA 13:23, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Already answered on the contact us page, FOIA, no need to make multiple posts. Thanks. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 14:28, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Dear Ed.

Uzi is just beginning, Joaquin. --JMR10 15:12, 4 February 2009 (EST)

If you found that page offensive, then your powers of observation might be a touch out of date... given how strikingly similar the examples of Liberal trickery are to the now antiquated ideas of Jewish trickery. A page out of this very site's book, I'll point out that such ideas were a good portion of the justification of anti-antisemitism in western Europe directly prior to WWII, and the devastating consequences they had for our people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mccain2010 (talk)

Thank you for the link, Ed! MattL 11:30, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for your speedy attention to those couple of housekeeping requests. There are actually a few more templates in need of noinclude tags - if you're so inclined, you can find them via Category:Navigation box (which has hundreds of misassigned pages in it because of this error).

Or maybe we should leave it until EdBot comes out of retirement?--CPalmer 12:21, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Ed, the page you helped me begin is coming along, slow but kinda steady, but i want to make one one, Leviticus 18, to go along with it, not just Leviticus which is done. I can begin a new page, but i want to add the the reftagger script, and find no help pages to do so, and so i thought i would ask you. i would prefer the KJV. And what is the max on a page size (kb)? WP is up to over 400 tops. Bless the Lord and Thanks. Daniel1212 23:37, 15 February 2009 (EST)

There is no max page size. If an article gets too long, an administrator might break into smaller pieces. But you're doing fine. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:07, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks. But with Leviticus, etc. is can grow much, God willing. But how to I use the reftagger in a Template for a new page?Daniel1212 00:39, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Daniel, are you talking about references? In a template? Check with Iduan one of our resident template geniuses! --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 01:26, 18 February 2009 (EST)

If you're talking about the Bible verses that appear automatically (like this: Judges 4:8), you don't need to do anything. They're added to every page automatically - cool eh?--CPalmer 15:04, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, the latter is what i meant. I tried posting a Bible reference on a new page, but under preview it did not show it. I guess you have to save the page first. ThanksDaniel1212 19:44, 18 February 2009 (EST)

I'm not seeing Bible links either, CPalmer. Do I need to set something in preferences? (I have a custom monobook.js script also.) --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:38, 19 February 2009 (EST)

No idea why it wouldn't work for you, but when I hover my mouse over any Bible reference (say Hosea 3:3) a yellow-colored window appears with the text in it. Maybe CPWebmaster is the person to ask? It's a great feature, as it saves having to link to a Bible website (or look the verse up in a real Bible).--CPalmer 11:55, 19 February 2009 (EST)

It is a matter of the skin selected, gentlemen. If you switch to the default "conserv" skin, the bible verses auto display. It formerly displayed for me using monobook, before the server crash of January, but no longer. If one can abide the horrible purple/magenta links of "conserv" and other odd color renderings, switching to it will give you want you want. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 12:25, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Actually, I got my Bible references to work again. Not really sure how I did it though. But I can see the Barak reference in Judges 4:8 now. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:07, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Ed, all I can say is, if you're not going -- neither am I. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 19:48, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Just want to commend the popup Bible references. Maybe in the future an internal link to a CP page could give a pop up preview, or a definition to a word. "It remaineth, the time is short." Perhaps to work freely, at least. Daniel1212 17:57, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Ed...you have misunderstood. Read my (AlanE) talkpage under EMAILS. I have had two accounts since August 2007 - quite openly, you can read the three-way talk between me you and Terry - and now I am making sure that no one comes along and kills both of them in one swipe whilst deleting the inactive Guddle. If you have the wherewithall to delete Guddle after transfering Guddle's contributions (Major ones are Robert Schumann, and Crimean War to AlanE I would be most happy. OK? I am trying to uncomplicate things. AlanE 17:41, 20 February 2009 (EST)

• Nothing can be transfered to an account already made. If you wish to do this, simply post on Andy's page, requesting it, and telling him what name you wish to use. It will need to be a user name not already taken/created. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 18:11, 20 February 2009 (EST)

So which one do you want to keep, Alan? --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:44, 20 February 2009 (EST)

AlanE, please Ed. AlanE 20:36, 20 February 2009 (EST)

So we can either leave Guddle alone, or redirect 'its' uses pages to yours. If the lion's share of contributions are under AlanE, maybe it's not worth the trouble to have the webmaster update each Guddle contrib to "AlanE" though. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:46, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Um...is it allowable for me (AlanE) to go through Guddle's major contributions and delete Guddle's parts then reinsert them as AlanE?AlanE 21:29, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I don't know of a way that the software allows that, Alan....do you? --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 23:11, 20 February 2009 (EST)

G'day Terry - yes it does. I had a practice a little while ago. Check out Essay:Greatest Church Hymns‎ where I replaced Guddle with AlanE for two of the hymns. (I found this would work when I came back on site last year and found someone had changed a Heading, and I found 500plus words of article, written by me,were now credited to someone else...in a fit of selfish righteousness I copied all I had written to Word, deleted what I had copied, then entered it again under its real creator.) AlanE 23:47, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Okay, I see, not really delete, delete, but (what would it technically be called?) but making a new edit, under your own name, as only those with Oversight on CP can delete, and remove from view. I get what you mean. Sure, if Ed doesn't object, I don't. Or I guess you could always make a list on Alan's user page, or an annex, noting the major edits of a former name. Whatever works for you best, Alan, I will agree to, in my generous spirit of cooperation tonight. ;-) -- --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 23:58, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Let's see how it goes....AlanE 00:39, 21 February 2009 (EST)

-:( ----₮K_/Admin^/Talk 02:51, 21 February 2009 (EST)

That's silly. Let's just redirect User:Guddle to User:AlanE and be done with it. No sense cluttering up the article histories. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:56, 21 February 2009 (EST)

It seems that there are now two pages for Occam's razor. This is probably because William of Occam was also known as William of Ockham. It looks like this could cause some confusion, so I bring it to your attention, as I have no idea how to solve this.

I will fix this. Watch Special:RecentChanges. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:17, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Hi Ed, I recently left a comment for you regarding "reparative therapy." It's here, but the substance follows.

An admin told me to post this to your talk page rather than there. So here we go! I look forward to your reply.-LuciusF 20:53, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Well, it wasn't an Admin who made the request, but since you placed your comment on the Mystery: Where is Hell, its no wonder you were asked to post somewhere else. All things, BTW, with God's help, and a sincere desire to do so, can be changed. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 01:38, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I'll reply at talk:reparative therapy. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:12, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Please check your email in about 2 or 3 minutes. conservative 14:15, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Ed, please log on to yahoo messenger. conservative 15:37, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for the rv Ed. I know little to nothing on the Island and the mainland China. I reverted that users work because of wholesale deletions and redirects. Can you make sure everything is properly reverted? Is there a template for that page? Sincerely, --jpatt 15:41, 22 February 2009 (EST)

We had a similar fight over Taiwan at Wikipedia a few years ago. There is much resentment in the Communist world over the economic and military strength of the Republic of China. But if Mainland China would allow freedom of religion instead of torturing Falun Gong practitioners, then it would enjoy the same blessings that God has showered upon Taiwan. "What goes around, comes around", eh? --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:47, 22 February 2009 (EST)

huh, interesting. One billion versus less than a hundred million, hate to be the island nation in a war. Though, God has done miracles with tiny Israel.--jpatt 16:16, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I moved O love of God, how strong and true!‎ to an article on its creator, Horatius Bonar, also with a redirect from its title. AlanE 17:11, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks, Alan. --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:00, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Just thought I'd say "Hi". --Toffeeman 18:52, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Some comments. --Joaquín Martínez 22:38, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Please see my note here regarding your recent edit to the Obama article. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts. --SStaples 18:53, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I do not wish to get into an argument, and so I have refrained from editing the talk page comment in question again, but since you have warned me I think it necessary to make the following points.

The statement that I was shocked by the flaws I saw in the article in question were as a result of my knowledge of statistics. The 'shocked' aspect of the statement is indeed an opinion, but as is stated by the Conservapedia Commandments:

"Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages"

You specify that what I had said was an 'appeal to emotion'. However, there is no mention of this in the Consrvapedia Commandments nor in the Guidelines, and though you may disapprove of my opinion, there is nothing in the rules of this site that prohibits my statement. I hope this can help clarify matters. RobertWDP 13:08, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Using inflammatory language to get your point across is not allowed. Saying "I'm shocked" is inflammatory language, not an opinion. An opinion would be that Mr. Schlafly' statistical analysis is wrong.

If you can't refrain from inflammatory language, indeed if you cannot distinguish between an appeal to emotion and merely "expressing an opinion" then you may as well leave the project. Or stay, if you want to learn how to write dispassionately - even about your own opinions. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:10, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I appreciate that it may well be an appeal to emotion in some sense but my point was that you had warned me to stick to the standards, and I was simply pointing out that I had contravened none of the site's rules. I will leave my comments as you edited them to avoid any argument, but may I suggest that if this in fact an official rule of the site then it would be beneficial for others and for future reference if it were made clear on the guidelines or commandments page for instance. RobertWDP 14:19, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I think if you read all the rules you'll find what I warned you against is among them. If not, I'd be happy to place it there if that will help you to write (and discuss) better while you're here. --14:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Hello, Ed. Could you kindly unlock the Template:NewEngandPatriots? They've made some roster moves that need updated. Thanks! WesleyS^Hello! 14:37, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for cleaning this up. I was really bothered by the highly negative characterisation of a film that's meant to be family-friendly and harmless. Pepperlynn 17:34, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Ed, I was told early on that I may include work that I have contributed to other sites such as Wikipedia here, if it is entirely my work. Well, you deleted Joseph de Tonquédec which is entitely my work. I started the aticle and contributed to it. If you go through the history you will see that others worked on reformating references or added tags. Unless there is some new policy here I don't understand why you deleted it. I would like to put it back. Dwain 12:08, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Did you tell anyone that it was your own work? What is your Wikipedia username?

We don't mind crossposting, but you have to alert us so a zealous deleter doesn't waste everyone's time. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:52, 15 March 2009 (EDT)