User talk:Ed Poor/1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi I have the same nick over here except without the ` Crackertalk 13:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Cool. Our IRC has spilled over into wiki. --Ed Poor 13:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, hi there, Ed! Glad to see you. Dpbsmith 18:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Hi, got your emails. Thanks. --Ed Poor 00:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Great edits, Ed. I'm learning much from you! --Aschlafly 00:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. It will take me some time to get used to conventions of this web site. Formatting isn't so different from Wikipedia, and I hope the social conventions aren't too hard to learn. So far everyone's been real patient and kind. :-) --Ed Poor 19:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Convergent evolution

Um, could we resurrect that content elsewhere? --PalMDtalk 20:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It should be in the article history. Go ahead and put it back, if you (as a man of science) think it made any sense. If in doubt, paste it onto the talk page. --Ed Poor 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


Are you signed into, or paying attention to, your Yahoo? I messaged you there, shows you online.... --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Terry, I don't have Yahoo instant messenger. My new machine (a family Christmas present) only has Trillian and XChat. Both are configured for IRC on freenode but neither is set up for Yahoo yet. I use Yahoo for email, which is probably why it's telling you I'm there. Please email me if you can't reach me on IRC.
Meanwhile, I'll work on getting Yahoo set up, but email is faster. Hint, hint. :-) --Ed Poor 21:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I have Trillian. If you are using it, it will show you as signed into Yahoo on others using Yahoo IM. It shows you online now. Trillian is merely a client, and one must enter their YAHOO/MSN/AIM info. If you did that, and start Trillian, it will auto sign you in to whatever accounts you placed there. I did respond to your emails. No answer, so hardly faster, lol. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


PALMD is waiting patiently for you on #conservapedia. Crackertalk 21:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


FromtheBehind was blocked for only two hours for initiating an ideologcal war. Huey_gunna_getcha was banned for three days referencing someone's tantrum. Does this really make sense to you? --Huey dun gotcha 22:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


User DogBreath finds it necessary to continuall upload disgusting pictures and use foul language. I wouldn't like to think of children being given the opportunity to see them.

Account blocked, simply on your say so. I don't want to see any more images like the 2 I deleted a moment ago. --Ed Poor 08:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
It's a difficult but excellent job you guys are doing. Those two images were re-uploaded(if there is such a word) under the names SillyLol.jpg and farts.jpg. I have removed the images from the articles. Saved matt 08:17, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. I'll delete them, and you should be a sysop (so you can delete stuff like this). I'll mention this at User talk:Aschlafly. --Ed Poor 08:18, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
only 4 hours? Jaques 08:28, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Block extended. [1] --Ed Poor 08:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Revert war over maintenance

(sigh) Requesting sysop assistance because TK is creating a double redirect:

I have attempted to fix this double redirect two times, and both got reverted by TK. I assume he sees my routine repair as an attack on his User Talk page, so I need sysop authority to get the permission to fix things. The page is now also protected in its broken state, so I definitely need a sysop now.

So: I officially request the opinion of sysops User:Aschlafly, User:TK, User:Conservative, User:CPAdmin1, User:CPWebmaster, User:Ed Poor, User:David_R, User:AustinM, User:Geo.plrd, and User:Tsumetai to get a poll of roughly 33% of all sysops for this undoubtedly critical change to a User page.

All replies should be left at User_talk:Sid_3050#Double_Redirect_Poll for easier evaluation of the results. --Sid 3050 09:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

If I intervene, will you drop the matter? --Ed Poor 09:58, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
What matter? This isn't about him abusing me for no reason. It's about him reverting a helpful change and protecting a page in a broken state. I could also bring up the copyright violation I pointed out in Morality, which he reverted and protected. TK wants me to take the long road for all changes, so I do it. I tried fixing the double redirect twice, now it's locked and broken.
On the topic of his abuse: I'm f'cking off by him. 'nuff said. I'll cool down eventually, but don't expect me to instantly forget long pages of me having to defend myself for some maintenance while being threatened with bans. --Sid 3050 10:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Update: Following your advice; taking a time-out of a few hours. --Sid 3050 10:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Latest spree

Quite the vadalism spree going on...--PalMDtalk 13:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Just one user, I think. --Ed Poor 13:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Asking people to leave

Please obey the rules or leave. [2]

Awfully stern of you to say this. --Ed Poor 14:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Others would have banned him on the spot no questions asked.
He was ignoring guidelines and introducing liberal bias.
BillyBoy 14:48, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Just show me where - or post a notice at Conservapedia:Abuse. --Ed Poor 14:49, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
He (Sevenstring) was ignoring the following:
4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia. (See Differences_with_Wikipedia)
He then removed Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and Nelson Mandela from the [[category:Terrorists]] (People who are or were terrorists)
BillyBoy 14:56, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not exactly sure what point 4 means. Neutral to facts does not seem to obtain here that much, as facts seem to be in dispute. I would agree that it is not useful to be "neutral" to all points of view, whatever that means. Refer to my example of the newscaster "Live at 6...Nazis...horrible monsters, but snappy dressers."--PalMDtalk 15:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Billy, I'm not sure what policy here is on using categories to make a statement. Ask Andy. --Ed Poor 15:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Requested move

Would it be possible to move [[Talk:Conservapedia:Sources]] into the proper namespace (eg. Conservapedia talk:Sources)? Thanks. --Interiot 14:56, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Done. [3]

--Ed Poor 15:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Also, if you're finished with your test category Category:Foobars about Practice Page, could it be deleted? --Interiot 15:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

15:32, 31 March 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Foobars about Practice Page" (content was just a test - thanks to user:Interiot for prodding me)


Ed, if I make an article User:Palmd001/Science Classroom can people leave questions there, like in the talk page?

The technical answer is yes. If it fits in with the mission of the project, why not do it? Whether it's a good idea or not, you can talk over with Andy. --Ed Poor 15:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Andy seems to like it, so Im launching it as an experimental project on that link. IF it creats too much controversy instead of education, im going to abandon it.--PalMDtalk 15:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
If you think we need to re include it, feel free to ressurect it, but im not sure how to give an answer that will be acceptable, given that it IS a logical fallacy. --PalMDtalk 16:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I cant seem to find anything on the web about this particular idea; I certainly never heard it before.--PalMDtalk 16:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

See Bumblebee, which I just wrote. --Ed Poor 16:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait, see this

Great minds think alike, I already saw it. We should give Huey a prize for motivating me to write this. --Ed Poor 16:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey, do you any physicists, or at least someone who could pass, to answer a question in my classroom?--PalMDtalk 17:28, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Blocking Ayns Daughter

You blocked a user for stating opinions as fact. Do you think that the user's edits contained a drastically reduced number of citations than what is considered appropriate in Conservapedia, so as to merit a blocking?--Huey dun gotcha 18:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Huey, you're lucky to be getting banned for only three days. Your other name is banned for five months and you're circumventing that. MountainDew 18:56, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Please take a look at Scientific data withholding article

I posted a first draft. Please take a look and invite anyone you respect to take a look and see if they can make it better. RonCram 19:57, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow. I had to do a double-take to make sure I wasn't still at Wikipedia. Good to have you here, buddy! --Ed Poor 20:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

About My Writing Articles

Ed, I'd love to write some articles. In fact, I'd contributed quite a bit to the McCarthy page. My edits were removed, the page was protected, and I was informed that any changes I wanted to make should be put on the talk page. Take a look at Rschlaflly's latest edit on that page, the one that is said to be "as per PF Troy" and you'll see why I'm just a wee bit skeptical about your invitation for me to write articles. What is the point if what I post is removed and then, when I do post to the Talk Page, edited so as to be unrecognizeable and conveying in fact the opposite of what I'd meant? --PF Fox 21:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


What is the purpose of a 1-second-block? It seems pretty trivial. Such a block might go unnoticed. --<<-David R->> 23:38, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Edit counter

Making the place feel a little more like home, I've got an edit counter working... Ed Poor (talk contribs count). --Interiot 04:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Timed sign out

Ed, firstly I don't know how instrumental you were in establishing this site, but for yourself (or whoever started it) please send my deepest appreciation. After I realized what Wikipedia was all about I had actually thought of starting something like this myself. I really look forward to helping Conservapedia grow!

I was working through a long edit/article augmentation on Virginia and when I went to save the article, I had "timed out". My edits were lost because I was no longer logged in! I hit back, but the page had expired. It was a little disheartening and I don't know that I can muster the drive to write everything again. At any rate, is this just something I have to learn to live with / deal with with Conservapedia? Everwill 08:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Hi, Everwill. I'm glad you've come here. Many refugges are finding their way across and finding a haven of sanity and goodwill here. I didn't create the site - that would be Andy Schlafly (user:Aschlafly).

I'm terribly sorry about the loss of your work. Some browsers do that - I've heard horror stories about Internet Explorer. I have found Opera and Firefox much better for wiki work. When I go "back" I want my screen to look exactly the way it was - no reloading, and don't lose my edits! Until you upgrade to a better browser, try this rule of thumb: if you type more than 5 or 10 minutes, take a moment to copy and paste into another program like NotePad (I use TextPad).
Anyway, God knows your heart and surely must appreciate your efforts. Welcome home, weary traveler! --Ed Poor 08:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)


Ed, I have to try to clean up that AIDS article. It's a real mess as it stands.--PalMDtalk 10:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Speaking of cleaning up: it might be time for an archive there Ed? I had to scroll for half an hour to get to the bottom of this thing. Crackertalk

Archive complete. Thanks for the reminder. --Ed Poor 18:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)