Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
User talk:Ed Poor/13 (view source)
Revision as of 23:20, September 1, 2008
, 23:20, September 1, 2008archive
Archive:
[[/1|01]]
[[/2|02]]
[[/3|03]]
[[/4|04]]
[[/5|05]]
[[/6|06]]
[[/7|07]]
[[/8|08]]
[[/9|09]]
[[/10|10]]
[[/11|11]]
[[/12|12]]
[[Image:Ed poor grinning.jpg|right|thumb|114px|Ed Poor on campus]]
<!-- New comments at the bottom, please. -->
==Latter Day Saints==
I haven't followed all this, but the responses by "Ultimahero" to me were unsatisfactory. I told him that if he wanted to express the doctrine of someone else's church, then he should bring in a leader of that church to do so. Quoting from people who were members or even leaders of the church long ago, or even today, is not the way to explain church doctrine.
It's inherently unreliable and non-encyclopedic for a critic of a church to try to explain its doctrine. No encyclopedia should allow such an absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:He was quoting the founder of mormonism, and top leaders. If there was a change in church belief it should be easy t find proof of such. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 16:24, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Such quotes are meaningless. Were they expressing personal opinions, or church doctrine? Did the church approve what they said? Has church doctrine changed since they said it? I trust you see the flaws now. Anyone who has an ax to grind against a particular church (or group of church members) should not grind it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
==Rules==
Warnings and blocks are not made as punishments; I'm not interested in justice ''per se'' but in helping the project along. Rules are not entitlements to be as annoying as possible. Help us or be elsewhere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
== How Is Floating-Point Important? ==
You deleted an entry I created on [[Harlan Coben]]. It's an encyclopedia, and since he's a fairly prolific and wide-selling author, noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia. How are [[floating-point]], [[Colne]], or [[conker]] appropriate for an encyclopedia while Coben isn't? Or even more applicable--[[Robert Ludlum]], [[Paul A. Fisher]] or [[William Gibson]]? I would've appreciated either a message first letting me know you were planning on deleting it, or an AFD tag so I could've defended the entry. I take the time to put in a non-controversial entry, and it gets tossed down the can. I think you can understand the frustration. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 00:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:I certainly support restoring the article. Ed, are you one of those [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism deletionists]? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 14:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::Ed, just want to give you another opportunity to respond and let me know about this matter. To take the time and put together an entry, rather than "talk, talk, talk", and have it reverted, is very frustrating. I am inclined to restore the article, but hesitate to do so without at least a response from you. Thanks! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:55, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
If you've been granted the ability to undelete, then you have the authority also. The article just didn't seem that good to me. May as well put his name along with 100 other bestselling authors in a list somewhere. Unless you're going to do an actual bio on him, like [[Stephen King]] and [[Tom Clancy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:58, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
== Name change ==
Hello, Aschlafly asked me to get a name change, could you help me with that please. I would like to use my initials which are B.E.E , thank you. [[User:Dotherightthing|Dotherightthing]] 22:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:My name has already changed, sorry for disturbing you. [[User:BenE|BenE]] 23:16, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
== "Advanced" template ==
I see you've been getting in fights over the "jargon" template. Instead of risking driving away the few people left who are trying to help make an encyclopedia that is an educational resource, could I suggest making a new template? One that you, I, mathoreilly, and the few people who are trying to help could agree on?
Mathoreilly is correct in that this is not accessible to high-school students. Some ('''many''', IMHO) of the science and math articles are in that category. Rather than banishing such articles from CP, I'd suggest something like "{{advanced}}", expanding to "This article may be more advanced than the usual high-school-level curriculum." And maybe something like "proceed with caution" or whatever quasi-humorous thing you think is appropriate.
There are probably a lot of us who could make a good judgment about where this template could be applied, once the correct template is created. This includes you, of course -- if you don't understand an article, as in the case of quantum mechanics and Riemannian manifold, then you should put the "{{advanced}}" template on. But calling it "jargon" isn't right.
By the way, I agree that the Riemannian manifold and quantum mechanics articles could use some work to make them more clear for non-advanced readers, but there's no way they can be made appropriate for high-school students.
I don't know how to create templates, and I assume that mere mortals aren't permitted to do so.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:15, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:I think the problem is more one of jargon than of advanced concepts. I have no problem letting people go who insist on using inaccessible terms in their writing. The problem is not the quantity of writers, but the quality of their writing. Didn't Einstein say that an elegant theory should be understandable by a child? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Like I said, I'm not trying to give the impression that the quantum mechanics article is good as it stands. It obviously needs major rewriting on all accounts--and I think it would be very valuable to have someone help explain the postulates I gave. But this is supposed to be an article on quantum mechanics--so it would be very useful to have the essential postulates of the theory written down somewhere. Now, it's not my fault that quantum mechanics is best explained through the language of linear algebra. I didn't make up these physical laws. Perhaps someone could write a page explaining what an eigenvalue is, etc. I've actually seen the word "eigenfunction" appear in the derivatives page, of all places, which is a much more elementary subject than quantum mechanics. Not to mention that someone made reference to the Hodge star operator in the Maxwell's equation section, which is an example of a FAR more esoteric reference getting mentioned in the context of a FAR less advanced subject. (Incidentally, I went ahead and added an explanation of the Hodge star operator so now the link works).--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 14:54, 2 July 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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:56, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, like I said, many of the math articles I've looked at were full of errors and mathematically meaningless statements. I've corrected some of these, though I obviously can't make a beautiful text book in a day. I'm curious, what is your mathematical background? Why haven't you noticed all the problems on these pages that it took me only a few hours to discover?
In any event, for the time-being, we should err on the side of accuracy over muddled explanations. At least then other editors can get a sense over what kinds of information have to be included. From there they can work on refining the explanations to be more accessible (and I agree this is a necessary part of the writing effort).--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 15:03, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
By the way, I thought I made it clear that I did NOT write that derivative section. All I did was change a few statements that were confusing or incorrect. I didn't think people would like it if I did a complete rewrite myself, though I did suggest that this needed to be done. --[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 15:10, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
==Why did you delete the derivative article?==
Could you please explain why you deleted the derivative article? If it had a problem why not revert it? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
==Condom Page==
Hi, just thought I'd mention re: the [[Condom]] article. Fidelity is not an effective form of birth control. Perhaps a slight rewording and rearrangement of the opening paragraph is needed. Thanks for your time [[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:02, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
:You can suggest a rewording on the article's talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:43, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
:: Would normally do so, but I don't have permission to edit the talk page, and since you seem to be the primary editor of the article I thought you'd be the best person to contact -- [[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:51, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Sorry to be a pain, but this issue has still not been resolved, or the page unlocked --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 10:22, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
== "Shocking" election news ==
Hi - not sure if you saw the comments on the main page's talk page, but we're wondering why you decided to call the fact that the U.S. has an electoral college "shocking." --[[User:Humble|Humble]] 13:47, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't. What makes you think I did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:41, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
:: Looking at the history for the "in the news" page, it looks like the item was added via the following change by you. Am I looking at it wrong? *19:07, 7 July 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) (9,343 bytes) (You heard it HERE, first!)*
==Stub==
I notice that [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] has been adding the <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> template to a number of articles. Isn't that frowned upon, or has that changed? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:35, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
:I was adding it to articles to convince people to expand those articles --<span style="margin-top: -3px;"> [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 14:35, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
::Using that template doesn't provide enough incentive; try something else, please. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Can I put it on the article's talk page--<span style="margin-top: -3px;"> [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 14:46, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: How am I supposed to create incentive to edit those articles, then --<span style="margin-top: -3px;"> [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 14:54, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
::We all have the same question. A couple things I have found to work:
::#Make a periodic, significant updates, with an interesting [[edit summary]]. Other writers will see this in Recent Changes and jump in.
::#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). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:59, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
==Quantum Mechanics==
Why do you want to remove those sections from the quantum mechanics article? I especially liked the key points section I added which pretty much encapsulates the entire difference between classical and quantum theory, and explains where this notion of wave/particle duality arises in physics.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 15:04, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
By the way, the above comment is my response to your edit summary. You haven't really given any reason for deleting all that information from the quantum mechanics article other than that you didn't understand it. Call me crazy, but I tend to restrict myself to editing the articles that I DO understand. Otherwise, how do I know what I'm editing?
Of course I understand the need to make the article accessible. But I think, at the very least, the key points section IS accessible to a large degree, and could be made more accessible with a few suggestions and minor revisions. The way to do these things is to make an attempt at explaining something, and then revise it. If we just delete these attempts at the first sign of difficulty, we'll never get anywhere, and we'll never get close to explaining anything.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 15:54, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
== Block ==
:I find it odd that you are lecturing me on maturity while you called my message to you "harassment". That does disturb me and I am shocked that you have such audacity as an administrator. Before I take your [dubious] advice, why don't you start with taking it yourself by not using personal remarks such as saying that I am harassing? That is certainly not mature. Nor is blocking a user simply because of a personal bias. Otherwise, I would like to know why I was blocked when User:Bugler was the one who started with virulent personal remarks directed at me. A mature person wouldn't block a user after that user asked another user to refrain from directing invective comments at himself. Unless you are willing to demonstrate maturity yourself, I won't take your last comment to me seriously. Would you like to resolve this in an polite manner (because I know I would, too), or would you like to block me again with a summary containing the subtext more invective rhetoric? Kilmarnock 22:10, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:Throwing this[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Bugler&diff=483083&oldid=483073] in, I didn't realise that you refused to allow User:Bugler to come to terms with the invective comments he made. I certainly hope that this kind of censorship from you doesn't demonstrate the kind of maturity you were discussing earlier. Kilmarnock 22:13, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:What I don't understand is why you block me again citing that I am being "disrespectful" to admins, yet you remove my post about you blocking me citing "yawn"[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=485524&oldid=485523]. That seems to dictate that you didn't find it disrespectful at all, you just didn't want to respond to me. However, I find it disrespectful for an admin to abuse his power by not only blocking a user that merely wants to discuss a previous block, but blocking him again while censoring his objection to the block. [[User:Kilmarnock|Kilmarnock]] 20:23, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
== Don't take this the wrong way ==
I am not writing this to insult or mock, I think it must be said for the good of the project.
*You remove large useful passages from articles claiming "they're too hard to understand". The project needs to have ''comprehensive'' information; sometimes, it's hard to understand, but oversimplifying articles just dumbs it down.
*You block too many people over misunderstandings ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Fantasia Fantasia] is a real name BTW).
For the betterment of this project, it's this users respectful opinion that you really need to calm down. I'm not saying this as an insult, nor do I wish to go easy on people set on vandalizing. It's my opinion that too many good honest contributers have received long blocks from you (and left the project as a result), over simple misunderstandings.
Please consider what I have written
Sincerely,
:'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 07:51, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
::Not sure there '''is''' a right way: you've been blocked for bias, tripe, bullying, etc. You speak of the good of the project, but other admins beside me doubt your intentions.
::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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
===Reply===
My apologies for the long delay in responding, I have a new full-time job, and had one of my busiest weeks in a long time, (I did try to write this on Friday afternoon, but by the time I finished, the site had been blocked, and of course I don't have night editing rights despite having asked for them a ''long'' time ago.)
'''''Not sure there '''is''' a right way'''''
:By "way" I assume you mean ''reason'', the ''way'' is fairly simple (for the sysops that is).
:As far as reasons go, the only '''''black-and-white reason''''' to block someone is for vandalism, like someone replacing a whole page with "THIS SITE SUCKS LOL!", this is a clear reason to block someone. While many of the eternal blocks are for precisely that, too many of the blocks are for idealogical differences, or more sinisterly, for offending a Sysop, (honestly, the Sysops seem to be very fragile, they ought to look into getting thicker skin.) or for keeping a line of thought that differs from Sysop (a favorite technique is to claim the 90/10 rule, sometimes changing the rule to fit the circumstances of the block).
''''you've been blocked for bias, tripe, bullying, etc.'''''
:I'm not sure what this has to with what I wrote, I wasn't discussing my blocks, rather - the kneejerk blocking that I see far too often around here.
:But since you brought up my blocks, by all means let's discuss them.
* '''''2008-03-16T22:12:22 Joaquín Martínez (Talk | contribs) blocked DLerner (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (Failing Conservapedia:Guidelines. You must be civil. No bullying.)'''''
:This block was because I was removing ridiculous nonsensical "see also" links from pages, a rule that I thought had been sanctioned by the leading Sysops, but unfortunately was a habit of the blocking Sysop. (For example, there was a link to [[Salma Hayek]] in the [[Dean Martin]] article, check the page history if you don't believe me). I was unblocked when I explained the situation to another Sysop.
* '''''2008-04-14T09:03:06 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked DLerner (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (personal remarks)'''''
:If I recall correctly, you blocked me for asking on your talk page "What's wrong with you", or the equivalent. Now, I may be wrong, but I think it's a harsh to block someone for an over-the-top remark.
* '''''2008-05-02T17:39:31 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked DLerner (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (accusation)'''''
:I still have no idea what this block was about, I wrote to you, and you ignored my e-mails until the block had expired. I gave up on ever trying to find who I accused.
* '''''2008-06-16T02:19:43 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked DLerner (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (continued bias and disrespect against Conservapedia; we're fed up with your own tripe)'''''
:This block was handed to me because I referred to an Essay written by [[User:Aschlafly|a certain high ranking member of the site]] as a "load of tripe". It wasn't an attack on the writer, but on the '''''essay''''', I thought it was a rather awful opinion, and after not recieving any response on the talk-page, I wrote that line on another talk page. So, we give out blocks for disagreeing with someone's opinion?
* '''''2008-06-24T09:32:56 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked DLerner (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) (Accusation of libel)'''''
:I wasn't (as you write) blocked for libel; I made the mistake of referring to a certain edit summary as "pretty libelous", I wasn't talking about libel in the legal sense, but in way it's used in the vernacular. [For the record, he wrote that all charities/benifits done by Hollywood types are strictly for self-promotion, I disagreed and thought he was wrong, so, I was blocked].
One block that I recieved I won't contest, though it was for a silly reason.
But I digress....
'''''You speak of the good of the project, but other admins beside me doubt your intentions.''''''
:You/they are wrong, I have never had any intent to vandalize, I write somewhere else to vent my anger, being angry at the site isn't a blockable offense, is it?
'''''Trustworthy, easily understandable articles are required.'''''
:I agree with the trustworthy parts, though it seems that some on the site don't. I don't agree with the "easily understandable" part; some subjects are inaccessible to the uninitiated, but in an '''encyclopedia''' you include <big>'''everything'''</big>.
'''''Anything over the heads of our core readership will be removed.'''''
Who's the core readership? Once again, I disagree. If they don't understand, they should use a google search.
'''''If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here'''''
:Err, that's the way it works with wikis, I'm well aware of the policy (which existed much earlier on [[Wikipedia]] BTW.
Cheers,
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:35, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
==User:Lemonpeel==
You blocked lemonpeel, for being too technical for a whole month? Shouldn't that be lowered, to maybe a week, and if he continues block him longer?
--<span style="margin-top: -3px;"> [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 16:40, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:He had been warned before. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:27, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:*Not blocked for being, but for flatly refusing to be otherwise. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:06, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
== Liberal Article ==
Hi, according to the history you protected the [[liberal]] article. Could you please unblock it and remove the Westboro Baptist Church as a liberal organization? I believe that their political views are neither liberal or conservative. Thanks. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 18:20, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:Nutty church removed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:13, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
::Much appreciated. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:17, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
==just for you Ed!==
[[Ruling class]].
Add what you will!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 22:05, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Umm I am confused, how was that entry jargon laden? Why delete the whole lot instead improving/letting me improve it?
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 22:21, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
== Anthropogenic global warming ==
Ed, in the interests of compromise, I'll refer to the 1.5 degrees F (or so; I'll check the exact figure) since the middle of the 19th century, but I'm putting the other reversions back the way they were. Everything I said there was absolutely true.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:Good, because "warming" means an increase in average atmospheric temperature, or an increase in average near-surface temperature. And that's what has been observed since 1880 or thereabouts.
:Of course, the burning question is whether the 1880-1930 increase is just as anthropogenic as the 1950-2008 increase. Not to mention [[cosmic rays]] and [[solar variation]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:58, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
::I've never heard any scientist claim that the pre-1940 warming was anthropogenic (IPCC doesn't), but I'd have to find a couple of references before I put that into the article. There was a fairly large rise in solar activity between 1900 and 1930 (and probably another in the late 19th century), so I think most scientists pin the warming on those.
::Sorry about the misunderstanding, Ed.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:46, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
==Deleted "ruling class"==
I was making some additions to this page only to find it was deleted. The edit summary said it was for jargon but this is impossible, the page contained a description of the term in the terms that it was first used:
"A '''Ruling class''' is a social class which rules over another, lower class. [[Karl Marx]], in his work ''The Communist Manifesto'' called the ruling class 'The Bourgeois' and the under class were 'The Proleriat'."
A delete was unnecessary in my opinion, would you mind if I redid the page? Is the subject matter appropriate for conservapedia?--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
== Notability ==
Dear Ed, I was planning to improve the article on Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, my favourite author, real food campaigner and celebrity chef. But you deleted it on notability grounds. Don't you think he is a notable figure? Thanks.--[[User:Kajira|Kajira]] 14:40, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, HFW is a minor TV personality in the UK. Not very notable. My parodist antennae are twitching. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Dear Ed, you haven't answered about the notability yet. He is a campaigner for better living conditions for animals prior to being slaughtered too. --[[User:Kajira|Kajira]] 13:12, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:Sounds a rather minor blighter, but you can insert him into [[animal rights]] or such like. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:21, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Minor blighter? How does that compare to [[Ed Poor]]? --[[User:AdrianC|AdrianC]] 15:25, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
:I'm a complete nobody. That's several steps down from 'minor blighter'. :-) --Ed
:: Does that not mean that you should delete [[Ed Poor]] as well? Or is it double standards - one rule for a reasonably well known person and another rule for one's own grand father?
==Kosher==
You said on one of your edits that you are Jewish (ethnically, I believe), could you vote at [[Conservapedia:Featured articles]], concerning if you want [[Kosher]] to be featured --<span style="margin-top: -3px;"> [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 14:53, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
:I strongly disagree, it is not comprehensive at all, therefore not appropriate for featured article. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:39, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
== Sydney Roosters ==
I deleted your suggestion that it be merged with rugby. By the way I wouldn't say something like this in a bar in Sydney (or in Auckland for that matter), the two codes are not particularly friendly.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:I heard Aussie actor [[Mel Gibson]] went straight from a pub fight to a movie audition; they wanted someone rough looking. He didn't get the part at first because his face was too swollen, but ultimately he was cast in the title role (see [[Mad Max]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:20, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::Lol that'd be about right. Rugby players are pretty tough. Mel being a good Catholic lad probably played a bit of rugby when he was young (just guessing). By the way I've decided to improve the rugby and rugby league articles. There is a page called [[Rugby (sport)]], could you please rename it "rugby union". --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:::No, I want one article on the sport of [[rugby]]. If there are variations in the rules, which matter to fans or players outside of the US, we'd like to hear about it. But separate articles won't be necessary.
:::Likewise, we only need one article on American-rules [[football]], even though there are tackle and "touch" variations, along with various pro and college leagues. The idea is to keep similar information together for handy reference and easy comprehension. (Hey, sounds like a new guideline being formulated!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:37, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Hi Ed,
Rugby League and Rugby Union are two differant sports with somewhat differing rules. Much like Netball and basketball are two differant sports. I dont mind either way but having them in the same article might be more confusing for some? Anyways, perhaps I can throw something together when I have more time and let you have a look.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 21:44, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:''The Independent'' says, "There are two codes of rugby: rugby union and rugby league." Sounds like one sport to me. Anyway, write it that way and I'll take a look. If the two variants are really as different as basketball and netball, I'll let you know about splitting up the article - after it's written. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:50, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Union and league have differant rules and championships etc etc. League is big in Australia but I think it is unheard of in the United kingdom (at a guess). I'll let ya know what I can come up with. Thanks!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 21:56, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::Ed, I mean no offence but you are showing your ignorance to the point of absurdity here. They are NOT variants of one sport. They are totally, completely, utterly, different sports. They have dirfferent rules, traditions and idealogies. The differences are not minor. Furthermore, for the most part they have been in perpeptual war against each other for their whole existence. Please Ed, stick to subjects you know something about.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:03, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Tedmund, this might help. The [http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport BBC's sport page] treats the two entirely separately, as does the [http://www.smh.com.au/sport/ Sydney Morning Herald] (which refers to them as league and rugby). [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|<sub>Nice old chat</sub>]] 06:56, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
::::Indeed, 'rugby league' is the formal name but no-one ever calls it that. It's common name is league, or 'footy'. This whole issue is a non issue, it's as silly as someone wanting to include Christianity and Islam in the same article because they have similar origins.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:31, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
== wisdom ==
Um Ed, is it a good idea to delete wisdom's comments on Andy's web page. They were very polite I thought. This could very well cause Wisdom to leave which would be a shame because just looking through his edit history he seems very intelligent and certainly not a parodist. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:37, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:I'm a little confused here. Why were my comments removed from Andy's talk page? I was attempting to be congenial and honest with him. Sigh. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 18:33, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
== Darfur Debate ==
Ed, I think you can probably delete the AFD debate as well since the original debate has now been removed by another sysop. As the person said, the entire discussion should be handled on the Talk Page of the article, as opposed to a Debate or AFD debate page. Thanks! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:43, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
== Line Segment ==
I didn't even see what the content of this page was before deletion. I was just looking at the Algebra Terms category and to see what red links could be eliminated (in this case [[Segment]]). I'll write a new page. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 21:32, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
:Yeah, sorry. I have low tolerance for math nonsense. I'll start teaching again (at a private school) in September.
:We need a page with math definitions on it, so if I have to erase one it will live an audit trail (or page history). [[Math terms]] maybe? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
== SamHB ==
(This is being communicated to ASchlafly, CPAdmin1, and Ed Poor)
Andy, Tim, and Ed:
As you may be aware, there was an enormous blowup about a month ago, relating to educational articles about math and science. A considerable amount of damage was done to CP's educational offerings in these areas, and a number of people (including me) were blocked for various periods of time. You might want to look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:SamHB#An_Open_Letter_to_Ed_Poor my user page] (and feel free to comment there if you wish.) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:06, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
==한국==
한국말 하실 줄 아세요?--[[User:Pakhyongshin|Pakhyongshin]] 12:13, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
:I don't speak Korean well. 내 호버크라프트는 장어로 가득 차 있어요. All articles must be written in English, with English language references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:31, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
==PHP and mySQL==
Ed, there's already individual pages on [[PHP]] and [[MySQL]]. I don't think there's a need for a combined page. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:40, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
==[[Grave of the Fireflies]]==
Konbanha, Ed-san. I saw you beat me to the punch on Grave of the Fireflies. Will it be ok for me to expand on it - add production details, characters and actors and story synopsis, please? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''User formerly known as JessicaT'']]</sub> 07:55, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
:KotomiT, that's what a wiki is all about so I would say go right ahead. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 15:23, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
::She knows that - she's just being a little extra courteous. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:50, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Thank you! Will try and update, if editing is on when I get home tonight. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''User formerly known as JessicaT'']]</sub> 22:04, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
==Internet memes==
As you can see, I have added a small mention of internet memes on the [[meme]] page. I do not see this as unencyclopedic material, since it exists, is fairly well known, and should at least be noted. I saw that you deleted such mentions previously. I was careful to avoid specific examples or other trifling little unnecessary points (LOLcats? Who cares?), instead providing a definition. I mean, wouldn't it be helpful to define it if someone sees the word, decides to look it up here, and has no idea what it meant? [[User:JK899|JK899]] 20:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:See my response at [[Talk:Meme]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:08, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
::Ah. I had before, but now I actually see the point you made. When referring to internet memes as actual memes, it's misleading. Well, do you think it should go on the [[internet]] page? Could I make an internet culture page? Or are internet memes simply not encyclopedic and/or noteworthy? I mean, we want this site one day to rival wikipedia in information, right? Internet memes do have some kind of weird effect in our day to day life. [[User:JK899|JK899]] 22:58, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
==Thank you!==
For your concern, Ed-san, but I am genki desu at the moment! (Lovely word - genki 元気). Just recovering from grabbing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity with both hands, which has turned my life upside down a little, but we will get over it. The only real drawback is the time difference - it's now 10:30 pm here, which limits editing time, but I will continue to help out as and when I can. I have added to [[Grave of the Fireflies]] in the meantime. Hope it is ok. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''User formerly known as JessicaT'']]</sub> 09:37, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
== TolkienDL ==
Would you mind pointing out where he changed another user's talk page comments? I didn't notice him doing much besides the LOTR edits.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
== Deconstruction ==
[[Deconstruction]]
Could you please improve it to be used as Featured article? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:18, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
==Line segment, part 2==
Ed, I have responded to you on [[Talk:Line_segment]] and [[User_talk:Foxtrot|my talk page]]. Since you seem to doubt my mathematical authority, I would be willing (if needs be) to ask someone like [[User:RSchlafly]] to arbitrate on the mathematical content and set the definition straight. But I'd rather just come to a compromise on the talk page. Let me know what you'd like to do. Also, in deference to you, I won't edit any math articles (except to revert vandalism) until I hear back from you. Regards. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 04:15, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
== Block of DiEb ==
Hi,
I was informed that you agreed to get me unblocked. I'd like to avoid such misunderstandings in the future, so could you explain what happened? I haven't heard anything from you...<br>
Yours, [[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 13:08, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br>
P.S.: While I was banned, I wrote three emails to you (you can find them [[User:DiEb|here]].) I never got an answer. What went wrong? Didn't you get the mail? When I wrote them, I checked the box ''E-mail me a copy of my message.'' I got these copies - and assumed that my mails reached you. If not: there should be a log here at CP to find out if there was a technical glitch. It would be quite embarrassing if mail got lost on a regular basis. --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 17:32, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: DiEb, perhaps you overlooked that I told you in an e-mail that Ed Poor said that he hadn't received the e-mails. So he has already answered that question. I neglected to answer your point about the CP logs. Yes, perhaps the CP logs, which neither Ed Poor nor I have access to, does have a record of your e-mails going out, but it wouldn't have any record of what happened to them after that. E-mails sometimes do go missing. Perhaps his spam/junk-mail filter blocked them, who knows? I would hope that Ed Poor has checked those things, but my point is that there is only so far that you can question this, then you simply have to accept that we don't know what happened to them. As to what happened, it was simply a misunderstanding, and I don't think that there's anything in particular you can do to avoid it in future, so again there's nothing to be gained by pursuing this.
: Ed, you ''did'' agree with him being unblocked, and it's understandable that he wants to know what went wrong, so can you ''please'' unblock him again?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:49, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::I've changed my mind, okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:59, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::: No, not without good reason. But there's no point now, as you are aware. He's had enough of being mucked around and left. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:24, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
Ed, I noticed you just asked [[User:DirkE]], aka [[User:DiEb]], to submit a writing plan. I don't know how he is supposed to do so when both these usernames have successively been banned infinitely, and the person has said emails he's written to you have been unanswered (apparently because they never got through to you). It seems like a Catch-22. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Okay, so now I'm more informed of the situation. I can now personally attest that your email works just fine and the writing plan can be submitted that way. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:53, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
===Foxtrot===
Er. Could you maybe unblock Foxtrot again? Pretty please? He did a good job of refining the articles I started (adding categories and expanding definitions) for example, and considering that he apparently got blocked just for pointing out your apparent error, I think this is going a bit far. "Mind your own business" is ''not'' a Commandment, and that user has been very productive. Please reconsider; we can use his help. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:00, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:09, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks for undoing the block so quickly, Ed, and thanks, DirkB for appreciating my work :-). Though my experience with the unblock seems to suggest there may be some glitch there. After being unblocked, I tried to edit and my block was automatically extended by 0 minutes, and then the next time I tried in a few minutes, it was extended for a day. When I tried again this morning, it extended ''again'', so I just unblocked myself with the ID of the new "block". I wonder if this has been happening to other users coming off their blocks. If so, we should tell Andy to look into it. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
==You have been working hard again==
I have been working hard also, but no one cares :( [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:22, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
== Writing assignments ==
Excuse me, but I need to ask this, with the utmost earnestness: Ed who the hell do you think you are to order writing assignments? --Jeremy 11:12, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
[[/1|01]]
[[/2|02]]
[[/3|03]]
[[/4|04]]
[[/5|05]]
[[/6|06]]
[[/7|07]]
[[/8|08]]
[[/9|09]]
[[/10|10]]
[[/11|11]]
[[/12|12]]
[[Image:Ed poor grinning.jpg|right|thumb|114px|Ed Poor on campus]]
<!-- New comments at the bottom, please. -->
==Latter Day Saints==
I haven't followed all this, but the responses by "Ultimahero" to me were unsatisfactory. I told him that if he wanted to express the doctrine of someone else's church, then he should bring in a leader of that church to do so. Quoting from people who were members or even leaders of the church long ago, or even today, is not the way to explain church doctrine.
It's inherently unreliable and non-encyclopedic for a critic of a church to try to explain its doctrine. No encyclopedia should allow such an absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:He was quoting the founder of mormonism, and top leaders. If there was a change in church belief it should be easy t find proof of such. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 16:24, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Such quotes are meaningless. Were they expressing personal opinions, or church doctrine? Did the church approve what they said? Has church doctrine changed since they said it? I trust you see the flaws now. Anyone who has an ax to grind against a particular church (or group of church members) should not grind it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
==Rules==
Warnings and blocks are not made as punishments; I'm not interested in justice ''per se'' but in helping the project along. Rules are not entitlements to be as annoying as possible. Help us or be elsewhere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
== How Is Floating-Point Important? ==
You deleted an entry I created on [[Harlan Coben]]. It's an encyclopedia, and since he's a fairly prolific and wide-selling author, noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia. How are [[floating-point]], [[Colne]], or [[conker]] appropriate for an encyclopedia while Coben isn't? Or even more applicable--[[Robert Ludlum]], [[Paul A. Fisher]] or [[William Gibson]]? I would've appreciated either a message first letting me know you were planning on deleting it, or an AFD tag so I could've defended the entry. I take the time to put in a non-controversial entry, and it gets tossed down the can. I think you can understand the frustration. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 00:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:I certainly support restoring the article. Ed, are you one of those [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism deletionists]? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 14:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::Ed, just want to give you another opportunity to respond and let me know about this matter. To take the time and put together an entry, rather than "talk, talk, talk", and have it reverted, is very frustrating. I am inclined to restore the article, but hesitate to do so without at least a response from you. Thanks! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:55, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
If you've been granted the ability to undelete, then you have the authority also. The article just didn't seem that good to me. May as well put his name along with 100 other bestselling authors in a list somewhere. Unless you're going to do an actual bio on him, like [[Stephen King]] and [[Tom Clancy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:58, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
== Name change ==
Hello, Aschlafly asked me to get a name change, could you help me with that please. I would like to use my initials which are B.E.E , thank you. [[User:Dotherightthing|Dotherightthing]] 22:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:My name has already changed, sorry for disturbing you. [[User:BenE|BenE]] 23:16, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
== "Advanced" template ==
I see you've been getting in fights over the "jargon" template. Instead of risking driving away the few people left who are trying to help make an encyclopedia that is an educational resource, could I suggest making a new template? One that you, I, mathoreilly, and the few people who are trying to help could agree on?
Mathoreilly is correct in that this is not accessible to high-school students. Some ('''many''', IMHO) of the science and math articles are in that category. Rather than banishing such articles from CP, I'd suggest something like "{{advanced}}", expanding to "This article may be more advanced than the usual high-school-level curriculum." And maybe something like "proceed with caution" or whatever quasi-humorous thing you think is appropriate.
There are probably a lot of us who could make a good judgment about where this template could be applied, once the correct template is created. This includes you, of course -- if you don't understand an article, as in the case of quantum mechanics and Riemannian manifold, then you should put the "{{advanced}}" template on. But calling it "jargon" isn't right.
By the way, I agree that the Riemannian manifold and quantum mechanics articles could use some work to make them more clear for non-advanced readers, but there's no way they can be made appropriate for high-school students.
I don't know how to create templates, and I assume that mere mortals aren't permitted to do so.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:15, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:I think the problem is more one of jargon than of advanced concepts. I have no problem letting people go who insist on using inaccessible terms in their writing. The problem is not the quantity of writers, but the quality of their writing. Didn't Einstein say that an elegant theory should be understandable by a child? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Like I said, I'm not trying to give the impression that the quantum mechanics article is good as it stands. It obviously needs major rewriting on all accounts--and I think it would be very valuable to have someone help explain the postulates I gave. But this is supposed to be an article on quantum mechanics--so it would be very useful to have the essential postulates of the theory written down somewhere. Now, it's not my fault that quantum mechanics is best explained through the language of linear algebra. I didn't make up these physical laws. Perhaps someone could write a page explaining what an eigenvalue is, etc. I've actually seen the word "eigenfunction" appear in the derivatives page, of all places, which is a much more elementary subject than quantum mechanics. Not to mention that someone made reference to the Hodge star operator in the Maxwell's equation section, which is an example of a FAR more esoteric reference getting mentioned in the context of a FAR less advanced subject. (Incidentally, I went ahead and added an explanation of the Hodge star operator so now the link works).--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 14:54, 2 July 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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:56, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, like I said, many of the math articles I've looked at were full of errors and mathematically meaningless statements. I've corrected some of these, though I obviously can't make a beautiful text book in a day. I'm curious, what is your mathematical background? Why haven't you noticed all the problems on these pages that it took me only a few hours to discover?
In any event, for the time-being, we should err on the side of accuracy over muddled explanations. At least then other editors can get a sense over what kinds of information have to be included. From there they can work on refining the explanations to be more accessible (and I agree this is a necessary part of the writing effort).--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 15:03, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
By the way, I thought I made it clear that I did NOT write that derivative section. All I did was change a few statements that were confusing or incorrect. I didn't think people would like it if I did a complete rewrite myself, though I did suggest that this needed to be done. --[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 15:10, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
==Why did you delete the derivative article?==
Could you please explain why you deleted the derivative article? If it had a problem why not revert it? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
==Condom Page==
Hi, just thought I'd mention re: the [[Condom]] article. Fidelity is not an effective form of birth control. Perhaps a slight rewording and rearrangement of the opening paragraph is needed. Thanks for your time [[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:02, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
:You can suggest a rewording on the article's talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:43, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
:: Would normally do so, but I don't have permission to edit the talk page, and since you seem to be the primary editor of the article I thought you'd be the best person to contact -- [[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:51, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Sorry to be a pain, but this issue has still not been resolved, or the page unlocked --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 10:22, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
== "Shocking" election news ==
Hi - not sure if you saw the comments on the main page's talk page, but we're wondering why you decided to call the fact that the U.S. has an electoral college "shocking." --[[User:Humble|Humble]] 13:47, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't. What makes you think I did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:41, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
:: Looking at the history for the "in the news" page, it looks like the item was added via the following change by you. Am I looking at it wrong? *19:07, 7 July 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) (9,343 bytes) (You heard it HERE, first!)*
==Stub==
I notice that [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] has been adding the <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> template to a number of articles. Isn't that frowned upon, or has that changed? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:35, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
:I was adding it to articles to convince people to expand those articles --<span style="margin-top: -3px;"> [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 14:35, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
::Using that template doesn't provide enough incentive; try something else, please. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Can I put it on the article's talk page--<span style="margin-top: -3px;"> [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 14:46, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: How am I supposed to create incentive to edit those articles, then --<span style="margin-top: -3px;"> [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 14:54, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
::We all have the same question. A couple things I have found to work:
::#Make a periodic, significant updates, with an interesting [[edit summary]]. Other writers will see this in Recent Changes and jump in.
::#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). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:59, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
==Quantum Mechanics==
Why do you want to remove those sections from the quantum mechanics article? I especially liked the key points section I added which pretty much encapsulates the entire difference between classical and quantum theory, and explains where this notion of wave/particle duality arises in physics.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 15:04, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
By the way, the above comment is my response to your edit summary. You haven't really given any reason for deleting all that information from the quantum mechanics article other than that you didn't understand it. Call me crazy, but I tend to restrict myself to editing the articles that I DO understand. Otherwise, how do I know what I'm editing?
Of course I understand the need to make the article accessible. But I think, at the very least, the key points section IS accessible to a large degree, and could be made more accessible with a few suggestions and minor revisions. The way to do these things is to make an attempt at explaining something, and then revise it. If we just delete these attempts at the first sign of difficulty, we'll never get anywhere, and we'll never get close to explaining anything.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 15:54, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
== Block ==
:I find it odd that you are lecturing me on maturity while you called my message to you "harassment". That does disturb me and I am shocked that you have such audacity as an administrator. Before I take your [dubious] advice, why don't you start with taking it yourself by not using personal remarks such as saying that I am harassing? That is certainly not mature. Nor is blocking a user simply because of a personal bias. Otherwise, I would like to know why I was blocked when User:Bugler was the one who started with virulent personal remarks directed at me. A mature person wouldn't block a user after that user asked another user to refrain from directing invective comments at himself. Unless you are willing to demonstrate maturity yourself, I won't take your last comment to me seriously. Would you like to resolve this in an polite manner (because I know I would, too), or would you like to block me again with a summary containing the subtext more invective rhetoric? Kilmarnock 22:10, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:Throwing this[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Bugler&diff=483083&oldid=483073] in, I didn't realise that you refused to allow User:Bugler to come to terms with the invective comments he made. I certainly hope that this kind of censorship from you doesn't demonstrate the kind of maturity you were discussing earlier. Kilmarnock 22:13, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:What I don't understand is why you block me again citing that I am being "disrespectful" to admins, yet you remove my post about you blocking me citing "yawn"[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=485524&oldid=485523]. That seems to dictate that you didn't find it disrespectful at all, you just didn't want to respond to me. However, I find it disrespectful for an admin to abuse his power by not only blocking a user that merely wants to discuss a previous block, but blocking him again while censoring his objection to the block. [[User:Kilmarnock|Kilmarnock]] 20:23, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
== Don't take this the wrong way ==
I am not writing this to insult or mock, I think it must be said for the good of the project.
*You remove large useful passages from articles claiming "they're too hard to understand". The project needs to have ''comprehensive'' information; sometimes, it's hard to understand, but oversimplifying articles just dumbs it down.
*You block too many people over misunderstandings ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Fantasia Fantasia] is a real name BTW).
For the betterment of this project, it's this users respectful opinion that you really need to calm down. I'm not saying this as an insult, nor do I wish to go easy on people set on vandalizing. It's my opinion that too many good honest contributers have received long blocks from you (and left the project as a result), over simple misunderstandings.
Please consider what I have written
Sincerely,
:'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 07:51, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
::Not sure there '''is''' a right way: you've been blocked for bias, tripe, bullying, etc. You speak of the good of the project, but other admins beside me doubt your intentions.
::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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
===Reply===
My apologies for the long delay in responding, I have a new full-time job, and had one of my busiest weeks in a long time, (I did try to write this on Friday afternoon, but by the time I finished, the site had been blocked, and of course I don't have night editing rights despite having asked for them a ''long'' time ago.)
'''''Not sure there '''is''' a right way'''''
:By "way" I assume you mean ''reason'', the ''way'' is fairly simple (for the sysops that is).
:As far as reasons go, the only '''''black-and-white reason''''' to block someone is for vandalism, like someone replacing a whole page with "THIS SITE SUCKS LOL!", this is a clear reason to block someone. While many of the eternal blocks are for precisely that, too many of the blocks are for idealogical differences, or more sinisterly, for offending a Sysop, (honestly, the Sysops seem to be very fragile, they ought to look into getting thicker skin.) or for keeping a line of thought that differs from Sysop (a favorite technique is to claim the 90/10 rule, sometimes changing the rule to fit the circumstances of the block).
''''you've been blocked for bias, tripe, bullying, etc.'''''
:I'm not sure what this has to with what I wrote, I wasn't discussing my blocks, rather - the kneejerk blocking that I see far too often around here.
:But since you brought up my blocks, by all means let's discuss them.
* '''''2008-03-16T22:12:22 Joaquín Martínez (Talk | contribs) blocked DLerner (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (Failing Conservapedia:Guidelines. You must be civil. No bullying.)'''''
:This block was because I was removing ridiculous nonsensical "see also" links from pages, a rule that I thought had been sanctioned by the leading Sysops, but unfortunately was a habit of the blocking Sysop. (For example, there was a link to [[Salma Hayek]] in the [[Dean Martin]] article, check the page history if you don't believe me). I was unblocked when I explained the situation to another Sysop.
* '''''2008-04-14T09:03:06 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked DLerner (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (personal remarks)'''''
:If I recall correctly, you blocked me for asking on your talk page "What's wrong with you", or the equivalent. Now, I may be wrong, but I think it's a harsh to block someone for an over-the-top remark.
* '''''2008-05-02T17:39:31 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked DLerner (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (accusation)'''''
:I still have no idea what this block was about, I wrote to you, and you ignored my e-mails until the block had expired. I gave up on ever trying to find who I accused.
* '''''2008-06-16T02:19:43 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked DLerner (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (continued bias and disrespect against Conservapedia; we're fed up with your own tripe)'''''
:This block was handed to me because I referred to an Essay written by [[User:Aschlafly|a certain high ranking member of the site]] as a "load of tripe". It wasn't an attack on the writer, but on the '''''essay''''', I thought it was a rather awful opinion, and after not recieving any response on the talk-page, I wrote that line on another talk page. So, we give out blocks for disagreeing with someone's opinion?
* '''''2008-06-24T09:32:56 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked DLerner (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) (Accusation of libel)'''''
:I wasn't (as you write) blocked for libel; I made the mistake of referring to a certain edit summary as "pretty libelous", I wasn't talking about libel in the legal sense, but in way it's used in the vernacular. [For the record, he wrote that all charities/benifits done by Hollywood types are strictly for self-promotion, I disagreed and thought he was wrong, so, I was blocked].
One block that I recieved I won't contest, though it was for a silly reason.
But I digress....
'''''You speak of the good of the project, but other admins beside me doubt your intentions.''''''
:You/they are wrong, I have never had any intent to vandalize, I write somewhere else to vent my anger, being angry at the site isn't a blockable offense, is it?
'''''Trustworthy, easily understandable articles are required.'''''
:I agree with the trustworthy parts, though it seems that some on the site don't. I don't agree with the "easily understandable" part; some subjects are inaccessible to the uninitiated, but in an '''encyclopedia''' you include <big>'''everything'''</big>.
'''''Anything over the heads of our core readership will be removed.'''''
Who's the core readership? Once again, I disagree. If they don't understand, they should use a google search.
'''''If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here'''''
:Err, that's the way it works with wikis, I'm well aware of the policy (which existed much earlier on [[Wikipedia]] BTW.
Cheers,
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:35, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
==User:Lemonpeel==
You blocked lemonpeel, for being too technical for a whole month? Shouldn't that be lowered, to maybe a week, and if he continues block him longer?
--<span style="margin-top: -3px;"> [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 16:40, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:He had been warned before. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:27, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:*Not blocked for being, but for flatly refusing to be otherwise. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:06, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
== Liberal Article ==
Hi, according to the history you protected the [[liberal]] article. Could you please unblock it and remove the Westboro Baptist Church as a liberal organization? I believe that their political views are neither liberal or conservative. Thanks. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 18:20, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:Nutty church removed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:13, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
::Much appreciated. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:17, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
==just for you Ed!==
[[Ruling class]].
Add what you will!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 22:05, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Umm I am confused, how was that entry jargon laden? Why delete the whole lot instead improving/letting me improve it?
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 22:21, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
== Anthropogenic global warming ==
Ed, in the interests of compromise, I'll refer to the 1.5 degrees F (or so; I'll check the exact figure) since the middle of the 19th century, but I'm putting the other reversions back the way they were. Everything I said there was absolutely true.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:Good, because "warming" means an increase in average atmospheric temperature, or an increase in average near-surface temperature. And that's what has been observed since 1880 or thereabouts.
:Of course, the burning question is whether the 1880-1930 increase is just as anthropogenic as the 1950-2008 increase. Not to mention [[cosmic rays]] and [[solar variation]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:58, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
::I've never heard any scientist claim that the pre-1940 warming was anthropogenic (IPCC doesn't), but I'd have to find a couple of references before I put that into the article. There was a fairly large rise in solar activity between 1900 and 1930 (and probably another in the late 19th century), so I think most scientists pin the warming on those.
::Sorry about the misunderstanding, Ed.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:46, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
==Deleted "ruling class"==
I was making some additions to this page only to find it was deleted. The edit summary said it was for jargon but this is impossible, the page contained a description of the term in the terms that it was first used:
"A '''Ruling class''' is a social class which rules over another, lower class. [[Karl Marx]], in his work ''The Communist Manifesto'' called the ruling class 'The Bourgeois' and the under class were 'The Proleriat'."
A delete was unnecessary in my opinion, would you mind if I redid the page? Is the subject matter appropriate for conservapedia?--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
== Notability ==
Dear Ed, I was planning to improve the article on Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, my favourite author, real food campaigner and celebrity chef. But you deleted it on notability grounds. Don't you think he is a notable figure? Thanks.--[[User:Kajira|Kajira]] 14:40, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, HFW is a minor TV personality in the UK. Not very notable. My parodist antennae are twitching. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Dear Ed, you haven't answered about the notability yet. He is a campaigner for better living conditions for animals prior to being slaughtered too. --[[User:Kajira|Kajira]] 13:12, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:Sounds a rather minor blighter, but you can insert him into [[animal rights]] or such like. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:21, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Minor blighter? How does that compare to [[Ed Poor]]? --[[User:AdrianC|AdrianC]] 15:25, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
:I'm a complete nobody. That's several steps down from 'minor blighter'. :-) --Ed
:: Does that not mean that you should delete [[Ed Poor]] as well? Or is it double standards - one rule for a reasonably well known person and another rule for one's own grand father?
==Kosher==
You said on one of your edits that you are Jewish (ethnically, I believe), could you vote at [[Conservapedia:Featured articles]], concerning if you want [[Kosher]] to be featured --<span style="margin-top: -3px;"> [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 14:53, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
:I strongly disagree, it is not comprehensive at all, therefore not appropriate for featured article. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:39, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
== Sydney Roosters ==
I deleted your suggestion that it be merged with rugby. By the way I wouldn't say something like this in a bar in Sydney (or in Auckland for that matter), the two codes are not particularly friendly.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:I heard Aussie actor [[Mel Gibson]] went straight from a pub fight to a movie audition; they wanted someone rough looking. He didn't get the part at first because his face was too swollen, but ultimately he was cast in the title role (see [[Mad Max]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:20, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::Lol that'd be about right. Rugby players are pretty tough. Mel being a good Catholic lad probably played a bit of rugby when he was young (just guessing). By the way I've decided to improve the rugby and rugby league articles. There is a page called [[Rugby (sport)]], could you please rename it "rugby union". --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:::No, I want one article on the sport of [[rugby]]. If there are variations in the rules, which matter to fans or players outside of the US, we'd like to hear about it. But separate articles won't be necessary.
:::Likewise, we only need one article on American-rules [[football]], even though there are tackle and "touch" variations, along with various pro and college leagues. The idea is to keep similar information together for handy reference and easy comprehension. (Hey, sounds like a new guideline being formulated!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:37, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Hi Ed,
Rugby League and Rugby Union are two differant sports with somewhat differing rules. Much like Netball and basketball are two differant sports. I dont mind either way but having them in the same article might be more confusing for some? Anyways, perhaps I can throw something together when I have more time and let you have a look.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 21:44, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:''The Independent'' says, "There are two codes of rugby: rugby union and rugby league." Sounds like one sport to me. Anyway, write it that way and I'll take a look. If the two variants are really as different as basketball and netball, I'll let you know about splitting up the article - after it's written. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:50, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Union and league have differant rules and championships etc etc. League is big in Australia but I think it is unheard of in the United kingdom (at a guess). I'll let ya know what I can come up with. Thanks!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 21:56, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::Ed, I mean no offence but you are showing your ignorance to the point of absurdity here. They are NOT variants of one sport. They are totally, completely, utterly, different sports. They have dirfferent rules, traditions and idealogies. The differences are not minor. Furthermore, for the most part they have been in perpeptual war against each other for their whole existence. Please Ed, stick to subjects you know something about.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:03, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Tedmund, this might help. The [http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport BBC's sport page] treats the two entirely separately, as does the [http://www.smh.com.au/sport/ Sydney Morning Herald] (which refers to them as league and rugby). [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|<sub>Nice old chat</sub>]] 06:56, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
::::Indeed, 'rugby league' is the formal name but no-one ever calls it that. It's common name is league, or 'footy'. This whole issue is a non issue, it's as silly as someone wanting to include Christianity and Islam in the same article because they have similar origins.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:31, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
== wisdom ==
Um Ed, is it a good idea to delete wisdom's comments on Andy's web page. They were very polite I thought. This could very well cause Wisdom to leave which would be a shame because just looking through his edit history he seems very intelligent and certainly not a parodist. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:37, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:I'm a little confused here. Why were my comments removed from Andy's talk page? I was attempting to be congenial and honest with him. Sigh. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 18:33, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
== Darfur Debate ==
Ed, I think you can probably delete the AFD debate as well since the original debate has now been removed by another sysop. As the person said, the entire discussion should be handled on the Talk Page of the article, as opposed to a Debate or AFD debate page. Thanks! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:43, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
== Line Segment ==
I didn't even see what the content of this page was before deletion. I was just looking at the Algebra Terms category and to see what red links could be eliminated (in this case [[Segment]]). I'll write a new page. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 21:32, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
:Yeah, sorry. I have low tolerance for math nonsense. I'll start teaching again (at a private school) in September.
:We need a page with math definitions on it, so if I have to erase one it will live an audit trail (or page history). [[Math terms]] maybe? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
== SamHB ==
(This is being communicated to ASchlafly, CPAdmin1, and Ed Poor)
Andy, Tim, and Ed:
As you may be aware, there was an enormous blowup about a month ago, relating to educational articles about math and science. A considerable amount of damage was done to CP's educational offerings in these areas, and a number of people (including me) were blocked for various periods of time. You might want to look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:SamHB#An_Open_Letter_to_Ed_Poor my user page] (and feel free to comment there if you wish.) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:06, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
==한국==
한국말 하실 줄 아세요?--[[User:Pakhyongshin|Pakhyongshin]] 12:13, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
:I don't speak Korean well. 내 호버크라프트는 장어로 가득 차 있어요. All articles must be written in English, with English language references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:31, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
==PHP and mySQL==
Ed, there's already individual pages on [[PHP]] and [[MySQL]]. I don't think there's a need for a combined page. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:40, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
==[[Grave of the Fireflies]]==
Konbanha, Ed-san. I saw you beat me to the punch on Grave of the Fireflies. Will it be ok for me to expand on it - add production details, characters and actors and story synopsis, please? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''User formerly known as JessicaT'']]</sub> 07:55, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
:KotomiT, that's what a wiki is all about so I would say go right ahead. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 15:23, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
::She knows that - she's just being a little extra courteous. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:50, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Thank you! Will try and update, if editing is on when I get home tonight. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''User formerly known as JessicaT'']]</sub> 22:04, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
==Internet memes==
As you can see, I have added a small mention of internet memes on the [[meme]] page. I do not see this as unencyclopedic material, since it exists, is fairly well known, and should at least be noted. I saw that you deleted such mentions previously. I was careful to avoid specific examples or other trifling little unnecessary points (LOLcats? Who cares?), instead providing a definition. I mean, wouldn't it be helpful to define it if someone sees the word, decides to look it up here, and has no idea what it meant? [[User:JK899|JK899]] 20:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:See my response at [[Talk:Meme]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:08, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
::Ah. I had before, but now I actually see the point you made. When referring to internet memes as actual memes, it's misleading. Well, do you think it should go on the [[internet]] page? Could I make an internet culture page? Or are internet memes simply not encyclopedic and/or noteworthy? I mean, we want this site one day to rival wikipedia in information, right? Internet memes do have some kind of weird effect in our day to day life. [[User:JK899|JK899]] 22:58, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
==Thank you!==
For your concern, Ed-san, but I am genki desu at the moment! (Lovely word - genki 元気). Just recovering from grabbing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity with both hands, which has turned my life upside down a little, but we will get over it. The only real drawback is the time difference - it's now 10:30 pm here, which limits editing time, but I will continue to help out as and when I can. I have added to [[Grave of the Fireflies]] in the meantime. Hope it is ok. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''User formerly known as JessicaT'']]</sub> 09:37, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
== TolkienDL ==
Would you mind pointing out where he changed another user's talk page comments? I didn't notice him doing much besides the LOTR edits.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
== Deconstruction ==
[[Deconstruction]]
Could you please improve it to be used as Featured article? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:18, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
==Line segment, part 2==
Ed, I have responded to you on [[Talk:Line_segment]] and [[User_talk:Foxtrot|my talk page]]. Since you seem to doubt my mathematical authority, I would be willing (if needs be) to ask someone like [[User:RSchlafly]] to arbitrate on the mathematical content and set the definition straight. But I'd rather just come to a compromise on the talk page. Let me know what you'd like to do. Also, in deference to you, I won't edit any math articles (except to revert vandalism) until I hear back from you. Regards. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 04:15, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
== Block of DiEb ==
Hi,
I was informed that you agreed to get me unblocked. I'd like to avoid such misunderstandings in the future, so could you explain what happened? I haven't heard anything from you...<br>
Yours, [[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 13:08, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br>
P.S.: While I was banned, I wrote three emails to you (you can find them [[User:DiEb|here]].) I never got an answer. What went wrong? Didn't you get the mail? When I wrote them, I checked the box ''E-mail me a copy of my message.'' I got these copies - and assumed that my mails reached you. If not: there should be a log here at CP to find out if there was a technical glitch. It would be quite embarrassing if mail got lost on a regular basis. --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 17:32, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: DiEb, perhaps you overlooked that I told you in an e-mail that Ed Poor said that he hadn't received the e-mails. So he has already answered that question. I neglected to answer your point about the CP logs. Yes, perhaps the CP logs, which neither Ed Poor nor I have access to, does have a record of your e-mails going out, but it wouldn't have any record of what happened to them after that. E-mails sometimes do go missing. Perhaps his spam/junk-mail filter blocked them, who knows? I would hope that Ed Poor has checked those things, but my point is that there is only so far that you can question this, then you simply have to accept that we don't know what happened to them. As to what happened, it was simply a misunderstanding, and I don't think that there's anything in particular you can do to avoid it in future, so again there's nothing to be gained by pursuing this.
: Ed, you ''did'' agree with him being unblocked, and it's understandable that he wants to know what went wrong, so can you ''please'' unblock him again?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:49, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::I've changed my mind, okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:59, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::: No, not without good reason. But there's no point now, as you are aware. He's had enough of being mucked around and left. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:24, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
Ed, I noticed you just asked [[User:DirkE]], aka [[User:DiEb]], to submit a writing plan. I don't know how he is supposed to do so when both these usernames have successively been banned infinitely, and the person has said emails he's written to you have been unanswered (apparently because they never got through to you). It seems like a Catch-22. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Okay, so now I'm more informed of the situation. I can now personally attest that your email works just fine and the writing plan can be submitted that way. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:53, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
===Foxtrot===
Er. Could you maybe unblock Foxtrot again? Pretty please? He did a good job of refining the articles I started (adding categories and expanding definitions) for example, and considering that he apparently got blocked just for pointing out your apparent error, I think this is going a bit far. "Mind your own business" is ''not'' a Commandment, and that user has been very productive. Please reconsider; we can use his help. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:00, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:09, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks for undoing the block so quickly, Ed, and thanks, DirkB for appreciating my work :-). Though my experience with the unblock seems to suggest there may be some glitch there. After being unblocked, I tried to edit and my block was automatically extended by 0 minutes, and then the next time I tried in a few minutes, it was extended for a day. When I tried again this morning, it extended ''again'', so I just unblocked myself with the ID of the new "block". I wonder if this has been happening to other users coming off their blocks. If so, we should tell Andy to look into it. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
==You have been working hard again==
I have been working hard also, but no one cares :( [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:22, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
== Writing assignments ==
Excuse me, but I need to ask this, with the utmost earnestness: Ed who the hell do you think you are to order writing assignments? --Jeremy 11:12, 1 September 2008 (EDT)