User talk:Ed Poor/8

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You want a religion that justifies hate, look at the Honor killing article. --Ed Poor 19:37, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Opposition to homosexuality is not a "phobia" or a hate crime. Phelps is a lone fanatic. --Ed Poor 19:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

The answer is a return to civility and community-mindedness, not special laws which can be "taken a step farther" and used to muzzle Christians - as in Europe, where in some countries it is a CRIME to say that the Bible forbids homosexual acts. --Ed Poor 20:02, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

My own chief dispute with "fundamentalism" is that it spends way too much time on asserting that "I am right and you are wrong". Too much talk, and not enough practice.

I'd like people of all religious persuasions, as well as non-religious "persons of conscience" to go about doing good! --Ed Poor 20:22, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not subtle enough to send hints. For subtlety, see Genesis 2. --Ed Poor 09:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

" in Europe, where in some countries it is a CRIME to say that the Bible forbids homosexual acts." In which European contries is it is a CRIME to say that the Bible forbids homosexual acts? I'm going there on vacation soon and such information may help avoid unpleasant experiences. Auld Nick 06:48, 21 May 2007 (EDT)


Ed, I like your changes to the Scotland article ... much cleaner and concise. Jrssr5 13:44, 11 May 2007 (EDT)


Could a Sysop redirect Peter to Saint Peter? It is already merged.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:13, 12 May 2007 (EDT)


I'd like an article about Rugby to explain the origin of the game and how it is played. Another article or two on rugby leagues and teams would be good. I don't want dozens or hundreds of tiny article on individual teams (clubs). Please merge these into List of rugby teams. When an article gets too big, we can split it. --Ed Poor 09:13, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Marquis de Sade

If I objected to a picture of a kilted soldier exposing his bare buttocks, then I think I have to express some concern over the Marquis de Sade article morphing into a guide to well-written, literate, sadism-themed pornography

I personally (with the agreement of my wife) left a copy of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue out in the living room when my kids were in their early teens, as communication of the simple truth that Dad leches after pictures of lightly-clad women, and discussion of our attitude toward erotic feelings.

But the books you mention exceed my threshold for what I consider to be "family-friendly," and in I think they really would be emotionally disturbing to children in their young teens. If pressed I'd say it's not good for people under age 18 or thereabouts to read them. I could be old-fashioned about that, let's say 16.

As always, the issue is not whether they already know about it or whether they find see this material someplace else or whether it's already hidden somewhere in their rooms. Or whether it's protected by the First Amendment. It's whether Conservapedia is comfortable mentioning these tiles on a site which I think is still intended to be a reference for homeschooled teenagers. Dpbsmith 10:03, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I censored the titles and the link. Is that enough? --Ed Poor 19:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I think so. Mostly just wanted to make sure you'd thought about it. I can't quite stop nit-picking, though. I'd change or leave out the phrase "as innocent as Disneyland." I'm not even sure what Rice's quoted line about "a Disneyland of S&M" was supposed to mean. Maybe change it to "acceptable for sale in mall bookstores?" Dpbsmith 20:47, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Please make the required changes. I trust you more than I trust myself, on such matters as this. --Ed Poor 21:38, 13 May 2007 (EDT)


Ed, I'd like to discuss with you something from the mockery article. I'm fine with the fact if you want to attrible it as a liberal trait, even though I may disagree with it, but it seems to me using the phrase always is out of line. I've attempted to get rid of this particular statement, only to be reverted by RobS. I'd like to open a dialogue with you about it since you are the author of the statement. Thanks. --Colest 14:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)


I'd love to see an article about tools which people used before recorded history began. Just make sure that nothing in it is 'calculated' to offend Young Earth creationists. You'll have to pepper your article with disclaimers like According to archaeologists and Based on the theory of carbon dating.

If your article looks like a thinly disguised attack on religious faith, I'll probably delete it again. But if it explicitly mentions any assumptions which differ from the POV of Young Earth creationism, it will probably be okay.

You simply have to decide whether you want to make a trustworthy article or not. A trustworthy article will merit (or earn!) the trust of all readers, including those who begin with assumptions which are different from yours. --Ed Poor 08:56, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


Please tell others about: Conservapedia:New Sysops Training Page Conservative 22:05, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Regarding cooperation

I just added an article on Vasili Mitrokhin. It is not bad, but could contain a wealth of information. I am postponing work on the theory of evolution article alternative submission because it will take a lot of time and may not go anywhere. Other new articles will help reach the 10,000 goal. If you have any references or information on Vasili Mitrokhin, please contribute. Thanks. HeartOfGoldtalk 02:47, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate the update. Also, your signature is regal and smart. What country are you the princess of again? ;-) --Ed Poor 14:14, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

"Proven" theories

You're confusing math & logic with science. Theorems and theories are different, you know. I'd be justified in saying that the Theory of Evolution has never been proven. :-) --Ed Poor 17:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Articles to be deleted.....

[[1]]Can we try to make some progress reforming the whole deal? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:46, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Politicization of science

Ed I know what you are trying to say, but the banning of DDT did not affect malaria sufferers, it was too late for them. However it did cause an rise in the number of cases. BrianCo 06:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know what you mean. If it caused a rise in the number of cases, then it affected them. --Ed Poor 06:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Maybe I'm being too pedantic but DDT was not much help to the sufferers, they need medicines. Of course it gave rise to more future sufferers but to my mind the phrasing seems to say that people with malaria were affected by the banning of DDT. The only way that this might be true is that an increase in other sufferers affected their access to treatment. I just wondered if you might consider rephrasing for clarity, I'm not disputing your case. Otherwise I'll forget that I ever raised the issue. BrianCo 06:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, well obviously prevention doesn't help someone who already has the disease. The point is to keep them from getting it. If your aim is to reduce the total amount of suffering, then prevention is much more effective than medicine.

Think about seat belts and traffic lights and guard rails - compared to hospital technology like X-rays and blood transfusions. The hospital stuff is great for accident victims, but I'd rather spend money on accident prevention. --Ed Poor 07:23, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I accept all your points about prevention and the efficacy of DDT, all I am saying is that the phrasing of your passage that the banning of DDT was to the "detriment of malaria sufferers" doesn't make sense. BrianCo 08:25, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Phew! I would have done that but I don't like to tread on sysops toes. Now you've given your blessing I'll have a go, without changing the meaning of course.BrianCo 08:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, go ahead and rephrase it so that it does. :-) --Ed Poor 08:29, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Discussion in Talk:Homosexuality

Not quite sure where you're going with

Either way is fine. The point is to avoid endorsing the "finding".

Are you saying that my language seems to endorse the finding and therefore objecting to it?

Or are you just putting a stake in the ground saying with regard to possible suggested rewordings, that you will object to any rewording that seems to be going in the direction of endorsing the finding? Dpbsmith 10:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL, you were the one who wanted me to join this project :-)
And I still think that was one of my better ideas. Dpbsmith 21:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
We need an article about science which separates the politics from the, um, "actual science". So many times in recent years I've heard pressure groups say that "the science" supports this or that thing. And by coincidence, that just happens to be the same thing they've always wanted. Like groups who oppose third world population increases saying that "science finds DDT harmful to the shells of bird eggs in the wild" - when all they really want is to reduce population by increasing malaria deaths!
I get angry when people misuse my beloved, i.e., science, the handmaiden of reason.
The whole idea that "science says", is ridiculous. Science is an institution; science is a way of examining the world (including human beings and - maybe - even religious phenomena). Science is also a body of knowledge, divided more or less into areas (even if many of these areas overlap).
What I'm saying - and where I'm going - is driving a stake through the heart of the vampire of scientific endorsement! Nothing is true or valid or "scientific" just because a committee or its spokesman declares that they have made an assessment or a finding. Still less if they took a poll or a vote. A saying attributed to Albert Einstein:
  • I'm not worried that 500 scientists have called my theory into question. It only takes one scientist to prove me wrong. --Ed Poor 12:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Another request

Hi Ed. Thanks for noticing and correcting my 'Ester' entry and changing it to Esther. That's what I get for not having a Bible in front of me. ;-) Now, do you think you could help me out with renaming the Luficer article? Yes, that was a bad typo. ;-0 Learn together 13:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I, moved Luficer to Lucifer (angel). But you might want to merge the contents into Satan. --Ed Poor 13:58, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh, I didn't notice that the page is "protected" from edits. Sorry. --Ed Poor 14:00, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
  • No problem! I unlocked DanH's protection so you can proceed to merge. No use putting this off. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Category list inclusion

Ed, is there any way to include a category listing on a page. For example, if I put {{category:Australians on Conservapedia}} here, I get...

Aussies, ockers, blokes and sheilas from "down under".

...the text of the category page, but not the list of pages in that category. Is there a way to get the list itself included? Philip J. Rayment 05:51, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know any way of doing that without some PHP programming. I just bought an elementary PHP/MySQL book last week so I could learn enough to help a client. But you'd have to contact an expert. I would try Rob Church at Wikipedia. --Ed Poor 16:54, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Hmmm, he's left Wikipedia and is upset with wiki stuff in general. That might not be a good idea. Thanks anyway. Philip J. Rayment 11:46, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Articles to be deleted..... ==

[[2]]Can we try to make some progress reforming the whole deal? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:46, 20 May 2007 (EDT)


Hi, I left a response to your query on my user talk page to keep the discussion together. I look forward to your response! Cheers. MatteeNeutra 20:21, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Gay Disease

A vandal must have hacked your account and created a piece of hate propaganda at [Gay disease]. I deleted and protected, though I suppose I shouldn't have not being a Sysop. Um, hope you appreciate it anyway! Skitters 08:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

About as hateful to homosexuals as Mark Twain was to blacks when he used "nigger" 900 times in Huckleberry Finn? --Ed Poor 16:56, 25 May 2007 (EDT)


What is your AIM s/n? Mine is "Hojimachong", please message me. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 16:45, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Rhetorical questioning

I disagree. Do we not brag of the premium we place on conciseness? In any case, the use of a narrator's voice is extremely unprofessional. ("I doubt it...") Presented with the factual evidence I'm sure most readers will be capable of forming their own opinions on the inadequacy of democrat leadership. --Kelpan 13:53, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Who's we? You just got here. ;-)
Perhaps you missed my editorial comment about quoting critics. A lot of politics is about misdirection and deception. I think your idea is an oversimplification.
Perhaps we should debate this at Conservapedia:Should an encyclopedia simply present readers with the factual evidence on issues? I'd welcome your input. --Ed Poor 13:58, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Some minor issues

Please see my talk page User_talk:CScience and, if so inclined, reply/discuss there. CScience 22:26, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Vandal alert

Ed, user Moochu is doing a lot of vandalism. NatWest 07:44, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, but User:TK beat me to it.
  • 07:46, 28 May 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Moochu (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Subhuman Cabal Member?)
You can also report vandalism at Conservapedia:Abuse. --Ed Poor 07:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)


Hi Ed, I have a concern with the addition of agnostic into the atheism article definition. I've known a number of agnostics who were certainly not atheists -- they simply didn't know. I'm afraid if we blur the distinctions we are bunching together groups that are separate. Please consider my thought. Thanks Learn together 14:18, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to fit square pegs into round holes, let's try to figure out what the best usage of terms is. But also let's include any "alternate usage" so no one can hide anything behind the "snow" of shifting ground.
The evolutionists do this, and I wouldn't put it past other advocates as well. Let's be innocent as doves, but also wise as serpents. --Ed Poor 15:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

American/US History category

I saw you just made an American History category. I just got done moving a big chunk of articles from the History category into the United States History one, trying to get things a bit more organized. I actually prefer the term American History, but I figured I would go with what was established already. Either way, we need a consensus on one or the other, I think. Let me know. --Colest 15:24, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that "what you think" is what I should have thought! :-) In other words, I made a mistake, and I'd like to ask you (1) to fix my mistake for me and (2) keep on going as you have been.
You're doing a splendid job, and I messed you up. Sorry. --Ed Poor 15:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, and no worries. I'll fix it up. You might want to check it in a minute here and delete the American History category so no one else sees it and uses it on accident. --Colest 15:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Curious as how you would feel about creating a "Biblical History" subcategory, or would you prefer we just lump things like the Elijah, etc, into an "Ancient History" category? --Colest 16:43, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't like lumps. Those are what you get when you sweep things under the carpet. No, your idea is better. Go for it! :-0 --Ed Poor 16:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't like things that give the impression that Biblical History is something distinct from other history. But couldn't you have both Biblical History and Ancient History on appropriate articles? Or, I suppose an alternative is to make Biblical History a sub-category of Ancient History. Philip J. Rayment 23:03, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Let's not be hasty. Maybe the categories overlap. We should discuss this a bit more before committing ourselves to a lot of work that might have to be done twice. --Ed Poor 06:04, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
So far I've just moved a few things into Ancient History. There really wasn't a lot of articles so far so it won't be a big deal. Also, since we have a Bible category and a Biblical Persons category, having them in Ancient History and with a Bible tag is easy to come by. --Colest 09:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

7500 Edits

I am not worthy of even posting here...Богдан Talk 15:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't say that; I had a lot of free time while waiting for a new assignment at work. I also make a lot of small edits. You're doing fine. --Ed Poor 15:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

American usage

I thought non american usage was acceptable for British entries. I'm not protesting about your edit but if I need to use US spellings then it should be one of the rules. Dafydd 16:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Not a rule, I just was using my spell-checker. You can revert. :-) --Ed Poor 16:32, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
I will not revert. If someone else finds the need then it is ub to them, I'll just go with the flow. Dafydd 16:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Do I need special access or something to upload a file? I have an old picture of the Blaenau Ffestiniog railway and I get a message that only sysopps can upload! Dafydd 17:18, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Image uploads

Hi, I formally request permission to upload images. My previous image uploads and edits have been in the spirit and direction of c/p. Hannibal ad portas 18:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I won't even comment about this, since I was never asked. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:59, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I'm mereley asking the Sysop who left the message on my talk page saying that I need to ask permission to upload pictures. My talk page.. Hannibal ad portas 08:53, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, Hannibal, you mistook my vagueness. I never knew anything about the pending change, nor received a notice of it like you did. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
That's OK. I'm actually a bit intrigued as to why it was done in the first place. In my opinion it kind of changes the tone of c/p. Hannibal ad portas 09:08, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm guessing that someone must have played a prank, such as replacing an authentic image with a vulgar one or something like that? Dpbsmith 09:13, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
That or, I can recall an event where there was one placed on tons of pages by a brand new account. With the nature of this site, I think they have decided they need to develop trust in a user before they grant them full blown access. --Colest 09:15, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. The vandals would upload a sickening pic and then start replacing articles with this pic. First, a sysop or editor would have to see the pic(s), the vandal would have to be blocked, then go about deleting the pic and restoring the articles. Even though this image uploading block will not stop all the vandals, it will remove one of their favorite tactics. Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 09:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm.. That would do it. In any case I'm still waiting for my account to be given that status. My edits are all well thought out and non-controversial.Hannibal ad portas 09:20, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

  • If I had even one clue, I would tell you. I guess Ed can grant the rights, or Andy, but I don't know how to, or if I can. I posted on Andy's page asking, but no answer. :-( --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:47, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
TK, if it helps, I saw Andy "promote" some of us (me, fox, crocoite, dpbsmith) to "Upload". You could probably check the access log or whatever it's called and see what he did. --Colest 09:50, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh well it's almost midnight here. I have school/work in the morning. I'm sure it'll be all resolved when I wake up.Hannibal ad portas 09:54, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Colest, I would assume, being a sysop here, if Andy or Ed Poor wanted me involved, they would have sent me an email. I get several per day from him, but no mention of this. See his talk page. I am happy you can upload, however. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:02, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
Crocoite - you're right, just last week there were a few incidents where vandals used the "Upload a new version of this file" function to replace images (the Fat Man A-bomb comes to mind) in articles with totally inappropriate files File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 10:06, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
It was a sudden decision by Andy, based on info TK gave him a month ago. This week, he asked some of us techno-geeks about it and found out the exact way to configure the system to take advantage of TK's original suggestion.
I guess he was so eager to try it out - and so relieved when it worked - that he just went right ahead and left the new feature in place. I'm sure he didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers.
Only a bureaucrat can give a user image upload rights. So that means Andy - or or the webmaster, I guess - certainly not me.
If Andy wants to he could make TK a bureaucrat. I'd certainly support that! :-) --Ed Poor 11:48, 30 May 2007 (EDT)


Ed, you have some big Cajones to compare US liberal politicians to world socialists, and people who accuse Bush of being like Hitler [3]. I would take up this issue if you would like to respond, but I won't be back online for a few hours. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 21:24, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Isn't that spelled cojones? Dpbsmith
I'm like the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood. I have big eyes, the better to see you.
"If the shoe fits, wear it." If not, i.e., if Pelosi did not echo a world socialist sentiment then please correct the article in question. --Ed Poor Talk 21:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Perhaps when you have read as much on the subject as Ed and RobS, Hoji, you will finally see they (and me, since I believe I was the original poster of that fact) are right, and you too will have big ones. ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
    Liberals like to deny their connection to socialism. Why all the denial? It smacks of deceit, like the gay rights movement denying the existence of the Homosexual agenda. No one trusts people after they catch them lying too many times. --Ed Poor Talk 21:47, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Re:Funny Sig

I'll have you know those are Hebrew words :p! No, don't worry, they're gone. Bye-bye, pretty letters! --wikinterpreter woo!

I figured as much. --에드 푸어 21:42, 1 June 2007 (EDT)


I've seen numerous times posted that using stubs here is not accepted, yet the stub template appears on a ton of articles - should we be removing these if we see them? What is the official policy? --Colest 09:12, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

I usually change {{stub}} to {{expand}} when I run across it. --Ed Poor Talk 11:39, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Ed. I discussed this with TK while you are away, and have just been removing the stub all together on articles that fit the concise article model, and only putting a {{stub}}/{{expand}} on the ones that obviously need serious attention. --Colest 11:43, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

France map

You just screwed up the map on France, it used to fit the template box and now it doesn't. I'd revert but I'm pretty sure I'd get my fingers broken for reverting a sysop. --Colest 22:31, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

The problem with it before was that it was too big, and the table it was in was sizing itself on the map. Rather than revert, how about simply adjusting its size somehow to fit the table as it is (that might mean making the table a fixed width, and having the map fill the table width). Go on, I give you permission! Philip J. Rayment 23:14, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
I think I sized it down to an acceptable size, you might want to verify. I don't have enough expierence with tables and such to modify them.--Colest 11:56, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
That will do for now. The info box really needs to be turned into a template (and made common with other countries' articles), and when that is done it can be fixed up better. Philip J. Rayment 06:03, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

L.A. Times interview request

Hi, I'm a reporter for the Los Angeles Times writing about Conservapedia. I'd love to talk with some frequent writers and editors about the project.... but unfortunately, i have a tight deadline and would have to complete the interviews by mid-day Wed. June 13. Please e-mail me ASAP at if you'd be able to talk before then. Thanks very much! Stephanie

Before you think about telling this individual anything, it would be good to look at her writings. [4][5]reprinted on a forum website; don't mind the dead-guy pic Karajou 12:36, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Debate:The Vacillating Investor

Could you add this to the Debate topics page... I suggest under a new heading, "Puzzles." Dpbsmith 13:03, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Can you please help me with this?

Hi Ed, it's Tasha, I haven't seen you around much recently, but if you are, could you please help me again with learning how to do something in "wiki"? (I can upload images fine now, lol, and thank you for your help with that) but now I am trying to create a "Category" page (the page that lists all the articles in a category) and can't seem to figure it out :( I posted about it here: but no one has replied and I am afraid it may get overlooked. If you have time, could you please help me? Thank you very much! --Taj 00:04, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I've replied to this on the page you posted about this. Philip J. Rayment 06:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Global Warming

Is there some communication I don't know about? Someone has posted wanting to edit it? I cannot find it. I don't imagine that article ever being unlocked for more time than it takes a trusted editor to make their changes, Ed. But you can make whatever changes you want to! :D --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:56, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Be Not Dismayed

You told the above-referenced user that if he posted misinformation again, you would block him. Before the user made another post, you blocked him. One might think you're getting a bit trigger happy. --JHubertN 17:34, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

You are confusing "time out" with "shooting". It does a person no harm to exclude him from the project, while he goes and reads up on the subject he was so mistaken about. I'll be watching you now, since you were so 'quick on the trigger' in response (to borrow your metaphor).
Try to think about how you can help this project, or don't be here. That's what I tell everyone. You want to promote liberal ideas, go to Wikipedia! --Ed Poor Talk 17:37, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Sex change operation

Ed, another Sysop messaged me about this article of yours. Do you think its ok? Should we change or delete? Let me know. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:20, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Deleted. Not needed for a family site.
Someday in the farflung future, when we the basic articles we need, we can get into some of the strange stuff. For now, we need to explain the normal stuff. Like what is a family or a nuclear family? What is marriage all about?
Where are are articles on education, and the basics of cell biology? Our liberal friends were far too interested in proving their theory of evolution though natural selection to bother giving even an introduction to microbiology or biochemistry. I don't even know if we have an article on comparative anatomy! --Ed Poor Talk 13:26, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

John the Baptist

Hello Ed, Please look at the recent edit made to John the Baptist and the choice to protect that edit. We could use your thoughts on this manner as this would seem to be going a direction that would be inappropriate. Thank you. Learn together 12:10, 28 June 2007 (EDT)


Thanks. It's great to be back. DanH 23:20, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

French and Indian War/s

Hey Ed, can I get you to look at both French and Indian War and French and Indian Wars. Everything I've ever read refers to it in the singular form, so I think we need a merger. I made a comment on the talk page a few weeks ago and go no response there, so I'm bringing it to your attention since you were involved with one of the articles. --Colest 11:27, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Actually, there were a series of French and Indian Wars fought over a fairly long time period, each with its own name. The French and Indian War that we usually associate with that title was the last, and an extension of a much larger war that was occurring in Europe at that time. Learn together 16:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Ed, Learn is correct. I've responded to your comment on the talk page, and think we need two separate articles, so I didn't perform the merge like you asked for. Just wanted to alert you to this, sorry if I made a mistake. --Colest 13:26, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Golly, no. I know very little about history. I only know about the mechanisms of formatting and arranging wiki articles.

In most of my writing and editing, I am learning as I go along.

I would really like to know which "war" or "wars" we're talking about here. We have to get a good name for each one. Then we can say what it was about, who started it (and why), and what the outcome was.

You both obviously know much more about this than I do, so I leave it to y'all. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 13:47, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Team contest

I would like to have you on my team in our new team contest. Please let me know if you are able to compete. ~ SharonTalk 16:29, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Ed: Where is your contest record directory? User:Ed Poor/contest and User:Ed Poor/Contest don't seem to exist. We need that to tally your contributions. -- Judge TerryHTalk 15:05, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh, sorry, I didn't know I had to keep track. --Ed Poor Talk 15:08, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

A picture of the US flag

USA Flag

Is there a decent picture of the US flag somewhere? I'd like to write an article on the United States Flag Code. AManInBlack 23:54, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

This one looks nice to me. --Ed Poor Talk 23:58, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
I was ideally looking for an image of the flag in use, since the law is about how to use the American flag. AManInBlack 00:00, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

By the way, I'm not sure if you saw this unfortunateness. I noticed it's Conservapedia practice to redirect such unpleasantness somewhere appropriate then protect the redirect. I made slur for this purpose; can you think of a decent slur nobody could really get angry at? A classical example would probably be best, as I'd like to avoid all the political and social wars and whatever nonsense. AManInBlack 00:02, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

You make it sound like homosexual persons should be exempt from teasing or insults, or given special treatment of a similar sort. Tell me, how do you feel about people who commit adultery, incest, child molesting, etc.? How about pimps, prostitutes, drug pushers, mafia enforcers? Corrupt politicians, lying used car salesmen, dictators who funnel off foreign aid to build palaces for themselves, etc?
Should no one ever be insulted, put down or criticized? No matter how selfish they are, no matter how much they hurt other people? Should a cop be polite when returning fire? How about soldiers in a firefight, must they say and think nice, kind gentle thoughts about the enemy? --Ed Poor Talk 18:42, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't mean that at all! Instead, I mean that I feel that that kind of ugly slur is not at all family friendly. I know I'm a bit new, but I put "family friendly" somewhere between "appropriate for mixed company" and "would use it in front of the kids," and that particular slur is up there at "censored even on the news." (Wouldn't you block someone who used that word casually on a talk page?) This way, we can keep things family-friendly, while still informing someone who genuinely doesn't know better what the word is.
I don't think any good would come of me preemptively looking for words to redirect to slur. (In fact, I think that'd be a good way to get myself banned.) If I did, I would redirect at least three I can think of for black people, one for Jews, one for Jewish lawyers, a couple for Arabs, one for Mexicans, a couple mostly archaic ones for Irish, and probably more if I put my mind to it. It's not about homosexuals; it's about being family friendly.
I'm glad to see that many of the unfortunate slurs I thought of were redlinks. Some of them aren't, though, and could easily be protected redirects to slur, to help readers who genuinely don't know better.
All you need to do to make this my last comment on the subject is to ask that it be. I'm not here on Conservapedia to get involved in more controversy; heavens know I have enough of it on Wikipedia, and I don't even edit contentious subjects there. -_- AManInBlack 14:51, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

"Ad Hominem"

Not to be confrontational, but if you think my remarks are out of line, then as a sysop it's your prerogative to delete them. You already temp-banned me for them, and left no indication to remove them until several days after the fact.

As for keeping to correcting the vast amounts of meteorological and climatological misinformation I find on this site, by all means, as I have free time, that's what I plan to do. Now, I'll repeat this in a more civil tone: I'm well-educated in Meteorology. I've spent my entire life studying the atmosphere. When anyone edits this wiki, spewing anti-global warming rhetoric based on unsound science, it's a smack in the face to me and the thousands of other American meteorologists who are spending our lives trying to further humanity's understanding of the atmosphere so we may live safer and enjoy the outdoors. I'll tell you from personal experience - you will be hard pressed to find a scientist at the National Weather Service or NOAA who isn't concerned with global climate change. The skeptics are most definitely right - there is a lot we don't know and don't understand. However, every day, new research is completed that piles on the evidence that human industrialization may not be the cause of global warming, but is catalyzing the natural phenomenon. We don't know what the outcome of that phenomenon will be, but until then, why take any chances? Why not institute changes that help save the atmosphere in the environment, just for the pleasure of protecting this paradise the G-- himself blessed us with? Heck, if not for the pleasure, why don't we do it for saving the money that gets wasted on dirty fuels?

Please - and I'm really trying to ask nicely - cease and desist from spreading anti global climate change propaganda and rhetoric. If you're a meteorologist, then do so because you know that the jury is out, and neither side has all the science concrete to back up their claims. If you're not a meteorologist but some other scientist, do it because you value objectivity, and you see the bias in the so called "scientific" organizations that spend their time debunking claims without ever submitting their rebuttals to serious journals. If you're just a lay person with an interest in the topic, then please, subscribe to several journals such as Nature, and spend the time reading the articles that are published. They're absolutely fascinating - some of them even revolutionary - and I guarantee for every 10 minutes you spend reading a serious scientific paper, you'll come away with at least a dozen new learnings that you'll be able to apply to any other scientific endeavour you may embark upon.

If this comment is still out of line, then please - go ahead and remove me from this wiki. That's probably a sign that I should quit amusing myself and get back to serious work (phD's don't earn themselves!) Stryker 23:23, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Not out of line, just a bit confused. You're making a fruitcake out of apples and oranges. There are two separate questions: (1) what evidence supports the Anthropogenic global warming theory? and (2) how much evidence is needed to justify radical measures such as emissions trading or energy rationing?
I'd be happy to talk with you on the phone (without revealing your identity publicly, if you fear professional reprisals for speaking out in your own name). Just email me using the convenient link to the left (under toolbox).
Until then, I have to go with what the science says: global warming is a benign phenomenon which is almost entirely natural. If you have evidence to the contrary, please submit it. If an article you want to edit is locked, just create a rival version like global warming 2 and drop me a line here. Actual scientists will get special privileges around here, as long as I have any say in the matter! :-) --Ed Poor Talk 15:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Powers of ten mess

Could you please sort out this "mess" (sorry to call it that, but...)? You seem to be the main one responsible for it.

Back in April, you moved "Powers of ten" to be a template, so that it could be included in other articles. But about 40 minutes later, you moved it again, to "List of number words". That latter article has since been considerably expanded and renamed twice (now Large numbers), but in the meantime there are two articles (Billion and a recreated Powers of ten) which include the redirected "Powers of ten" template in them.

In other words, Billion and Powers of ten both contain the entire text of Large numbers. I very much doubt that this was the intention.

Philip J. Rayment 08:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

As the author of the most recent expansion of the Large numbers article, I can attest to the above. The problem is that the page Template:Powers of ten redirects to Large numbers--so that if you include this template, you wind up reproducing the Large numbers article!
Maybe I can help. I'll copy the table out of Large numbers into the template and cancel the redirection.--TerryHTalk 09:06, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Done. The template now has some very simple documentation. If the template should have more text than the table, let me know.--TerryHTalk 09:14, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
You know, Terry, I started to put this message on your page, then realised that it was more a problem of Ed's doing.
There is no need to hide the table on the template page. Sometimes that is useful, if the result doesn't show much or looks a mess, but in this case there's no problem. I've altered the page accordingly. Philip J. Rayment 09:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


The Database was locked due to a major vandal attack. --BethTalk2ME 10:51, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Health insurance

You previously deleted Health insurance as being dreadfully inadequate. I made a sort of stubby replacement; is it acceptable? I imagine I'm going to end up fleeing the article as controversy inevitably sets in, but I figured some simple facts would be a good start. AManInBlack 14:56, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Why block?

I sent you an e-mail asking why you blocked me earlier but so far I have not received a response. I would very much appreciate it if you would read my e-mail and address the concerns I listed therein.--Porthos 16:18, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Universal health care

I have created a basic article for universal health care. It needs some expanding, but I think it's neutral and only discusses the facts. I didn't know if it would be appropriate to go into the different opinions on UHC, so I just linked to some sources on both sides without actually commenting on the pros and cons. Jazzman831 16:23, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Team contest

Ed, the judges need you to keep track of your work so they can give you points for it. Please start a record similar to mine: User:SharonS/contest. Thanks, ~ SharonTalk 17:37, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Re: sexual orientation

Would it not be a better argument to say that ANY specific enumeration needs to be documented? Where does this one in fifty benchmark come from? Sysop or not, you put it in, it should be cited. PFoster 15:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

A couple of questions

I've recently moved here from Wikipedia and noticed you obviously know what you're doing. I wanted to get started creating articles having to do with Classical music, but have a few questions first.
1: Are there any restrictions on the articles we're allowed to write?
2: Can Wikipedia be used as a source for article witting on Conservapedia?
3: How can I upload images?
4: I'm often not able to edit ANY page and it doesn't really give me a proper reason. Is there any particular reason for this?
5: How does one get on the list to become a 'sysop?'
That's all for now, and thanks for your help!
NewYork1956 06:31, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the flattery. I am (with all due modesty) just about the most experienced wiki encyclopedia sysop in the world.
  1. There are hardly any restrictions. Just don't insert liberal bias as fact. If there is any question about what is true or not, leave the matter open.
  2. You can link to Wikipedia if you can't find anything better, but Conservapedia prefers to cite its sources directly. Try following a Wikipedia link, and if the source says what the article claims it does, all well and good (around 10% of the time, it doesn't; Wikipedia has no fact-checking program)
  3. A bureaucrat has to give you image uploading rights. Until then, ask for assistance on each image you need.
  4. Conservapedia is the target of coordinated vandal attacks, by (surprise! liberals!) who are trying to make the project fail. We have to shut down from time to time in response. Trusted writers are exempt from this, so please work hard to earn our trust. It only took me 6 days here to be made a sysop, but then again "I know what I'm doing" as you put it. ;-)
  5. To become a sysop, write a lot of articles, and improve existing ones. Become known as a trustworthy contributor, and we'll promote you.
In general, communicate. Most of Raul's Laws [6] apply here just as well as at Wikipedia. The main difference is that we are still small enough that the herd instinct hasn't taken over and subverted our original ideal (as it has at Wikipedia; they de-sysopped me and put me on probation, for pete's sake!). We also have a hierarchy with our editor-in-chief Andy Schlafly at the top.
Welcome, and happy writing! --Ed Poor Talk 08:56, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Reading the links in the welcome that is now on your talk page will answer most of those questions. Philip J. Rayment 08:53, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Help desk

"If you need immediate assistance from a sysop...". So who mans the help desk to provide immediate assistance? Philip J. Rayment 09:06, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk page unprotect

Hi and thanks again for the unblock! Any chance you could unprotect my talk page, too? (crossposted to TK's talk page since he's the original protecting sysop.) --Sid 3050 13:58, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind, has been resolved :) --Sid 3050 15:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

National League

Would it be possible for you to unlock National League for me? I was planning to work on it anyway after doing several MLB teams, and it seems to be locked for some reason. AManInBlack

Talk to User:Will N., the sysop who protected that page. --Ed Poor Talk 10:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
He's unprotected it, in any case. Thanks anyway. AManInBlack 10:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Sure. Similar requests can go to the Conservapedia:Help Desk. That's better than contacting sysops at random. (Consider me a last resort. ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 10:17, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Human Being/Social Science

Thank you. I would hope I would know a thing or two since my B.S. in in Interdisciplinary Social Science :-)--Porthos 11:41, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Why the reversion?

I'm confused. You said I did good work but then you just removed all of my edits. What's going on?--Porthos 11:41, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, edit conflict. We can't all three of us edit so quickly without stepping on each other's toes. Please dredge up anything that was lost, and place it on the Talk:Human being page. --Ed Poor Talk 11:53, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

TK's block of User:Sid 3050

TK blocked User:Sid after "checking with other Sysops;" [7] where is the transcript of these discussions? I cannot find it in the Sysop area. RobS 14:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

There's always private email, instant messaging, and IRC.
Look, Rob, clearly you and TK don't get along. I don't know why, and I'd rather not get into it here in public. But I must say this: take a chill pill. If you want me to use my highly sought-after mediation skills, ask me privately.
There's a reason Jimbo Wales put me on the Wikipedia Mediation Committee - and a reason the current chairmen begged me to come back and help reduce the backlog. I'm good at it. But I only work in private.
Best wishes, --Ed Poor Talk 18:34, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

small request

Dear Ed,

Out of 112,000,000 articles for the search term "Theory of evolution" the Conservapedia article ranks #31. I want to move the article into the top 5. So my first request is to please keep the redirect for the search term Evolution at Conservapedia. It will create more traffic and perhaps we can get a good ranking for the search term evolution for Google. Besides most evolutionists strenuously assert that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution since the abiogenesis proposition is so counterevidence/exceedingly weak. Also, I have decided to work on making the footnotes for the Evolution article more user friendly. There are about 180 of them. Would you like to help me? Conservative 11:23, 14 July 2007 (EDT)


You said: If you have a bone to pick about the American English usage of discovered, you should have created a debate topic. Discussion pages are for improving the article. They are not platforms for advocacy. Think it over for a day, and then if you still think the issue is important you can voice your opinions at Debate:Can Europeans say they "discovered" an inhabited area?. --Ed Poor Talk 09:53, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Think it over for a day? While I'm blocked? What are you, my father or something? "Think about what you've done wrong and after your time out in the corner, we can discuss this further. On my terms."

I *have* been thinking about this question - and others like it - for years. And if you want to persist in your belief that valorising the knowledge of one type of people - the people with power - as "discovery" and by extension having the knowledge of another people - knowledge that was millenia old (notwithstanding what the YECs might believe) count for less somehow, there's little I can do about it.It frustrates me that after forty-plus years of academic debate on these questions, intelligent and reasonable people persist in seeing the world in those out-dated terms - and therefore in perpaetuating the power structures that these terms produce - and reproduce. And it frustrates me that intelligent and reasonable people are unable to acknowledge the class- and race- based discrimination inherent in the reproduction of that kind of knowledge. It has been many years since serious writers, thinkers and academics stopped referring to "discovery" and have instead referred to the accurate - and less power-driven - terms like "encounter." Maybe you're just not familiar with that historiography - or maybe you're uncomfortable with the implications it has for your politics. I don't know you, so I don't know the answer to that.

But I do know that ignorance and bullying are not a conservative values.

And speaking of power, I've been on this wiki long enough to know how the power structures here work - Tick off a sysop, risk a ban. That's a chance I'm willing to take by writing this. But look at my contributions, and see how many of them are quality, solid edits that are on the top of their topics' history pages before doing so. There's no need for a semantic argument to result in the banning of a quality editor.

Bien a vous,

PFoster 12:54, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for explaining that. Now, if you'll sort it out into (a) advocacy about the power structure, respect for non-European knowledge, etc. and (b) editorial policy regarding discover vs. encounter then maybe we can get somewhere with this.
Perhaps you'd like some acknowledgment that the "European discovery of Hawaii" is not editorially meant as "the first time any human beings saw the island", or something like that? Please be clear about what you want: it increases your chances of getting it.
And, yes, if you feel I'm talking down to you, sorry, but I do have more authority here than you. I suggest you get comfortable with that, if you plan to stick around. I in turn am humble to my superiors, and I find it to be an immensely satisfying arrangement. --Ed Poor Talk 13:14, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh, yeah, it's one of those alright - that's pretty obvious in that part where I asked him not to ban me and in the edits I did after posting this. PFoster 13:41, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

  • So, show him by your good quality edits, and abiding by our CP Guidelines he is wrong! I can attest to the fact that Ed likes to be made wrong, and often, and is without deceit. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:52, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
PFoster, I suppose it can be said Ben Franklin didn't "discover" electricity, he "encountered" electricity, since it had always been here. And we can presume others had "encountered" electricity before Franklin, others who got hit by lightening bolts. So we cannot even say that Ben Franklin was the first to encounter electricity.
We owe a debt of gratitude to these enlightened scholars who have set the ignorant and unintelligent peons straight. Of coarse they didn't really "discover" the oppressive nature of the white male power structure, they just "encountered" it. So what's the point anyway? RobS 14:00, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

The point, Rob, and this may hit one like a "lightening" bolt - or a "lightning" bolt, for that matter - is that language not only describes, it creates power. How we define goes a long way in setting up how we exercise power. And likening the "discovery" of a civilization (like Cook "discovering" the people who lived in Hawaii) with that of an inanimate object (like Franklin's discovery of electricity) points to exactly the kind relationship between knowledge, words and power that need to be explored. As I understand it, and I'm no historian of science, Franklin was the first person to understand the relationship between lightning, electricity and conductivity - or something like that. Nobody knew about that before he discovered that (or at least bothered to write it down or tell anyone about it). Nobody knew about the polio vaccine before Salk discovered how it would work. LOTS of people - thousands and thousands of them - knew about Hawaii before Cook did. And they knew about it for thousands and thousands of years. Why does *their* stumbling onto the place not count as the "discovery" of it? Are these people - and the civilization they built over centuries and millenia - to be placed in the same category of knowledge as lightning, vaccines, and all the other material stuff people have discovered? Because if they are, that says something about what we think about them as human beings - and it says something about where we rank their knowledge and their civilization. And it says that because we have the power to speak for them and their history in a way that they cannot speak about us. We can acknowledge that, or we can ignore it. PFoster 14:22, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, in the real world, the one we all live in, sorry to say, it doesn't "count" unless written down, published, disseminated to the masses, no matter how you perceive the "facts". Yes, it marginalizes them. Isn't that true of all history? Invent a Time Machine, travel back, fix all of it, then you will have accomplished something. To endlessly debate something like this is a nice pursuit for an Intellectual Retreat, or a shut-in, but hardly conducive to building an encyclopedia, actually ending up with a final article. Add a section that Anthropologist's surmise this or that, if you will. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:35, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
PFoster, when I referred to "enlightened scholars,' I was refering to the same people you cited, "after forty-plus years of academic debate on these questions, intelligent and reasonable people persist in seeing the world in those out-dated terms - and therefore in perpaetuating the power structures..."
You seem to be a student of historiography, and of the progressive view of historiography in particular. The question seems to be over mariginalizing Western Civilization. When Columbus "discovered America," he really wasn't the first Westerner to "discover" it, he was the first Westerner to open (or discover) the Western hemisphere for commercial exploitation.
So the question is over none-Westernized cultures writing about thier own history. They are free to do so, but I'll make a $10 bet they most often will use the Roman alphabet or the English language in particular. So when we commonly use the term "discovered", we are referring to the Western Civilizations' discovery of non-Western peoples & territories. Barring Western Civilization being "conquered" by native Hawaiians, for example, we will continue writing in Western languages about Western Civilization's encounter, or discovery, of non-Western peoples and territorries. Now, if native Hawaiians, for example, can muster enough manpower (errr...'personpower') to "conquer" and impose thier language and alphabet on Western Civilization, then they can rewrite the history books in their own native tongue and clarify the whole matter.
Perhaps a word on the "progressive view of history' for non-historians: this is not a reference to "progressivism" of so-called modern liberal thinking, this refers to a view of the human species that as time goes on, human beings are supposedly smarter than earlier generations. It is contrasted with the view of most historians that human nature in unchanging, the species is no better or worse off than prior generations. RobS 14:57, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

"I in turn am humble to my superiors, and I find it to be an immensely satisfying arrangement." --Ed Poor

It's a good thing there were few people who thought that way in 1776. Or during the Civil Rights debate. Or any other time when the country needed to kick off the shackles that "our superiors" have placed on us. Challenging "our superiors" is only what makes America great; it's what makes America America in the first place. The US is a nation of rebels, and is founded or radical principles - or at least it's supposed to be. PFoster 09:52, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

You seem to have wilfully mistaken my meaning. I was not referring to dictators bent on imposing their will on me for their selfish purposes; such describes the mood of the Imperial monarchy of England in the 18th Century.
Rather I meant a freely chosen relationship. You will no doubt recall that I was not sent in exile to Conservapedia, but came in response to a request from DB Smith. You know I am a volunteer, yet you chose to omit any consideration of this in your analysis.
You can't be in this project any more, until and unless you stop doing stuff like that. --Ed Poor Talk 08:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

"Closed" template

Hello Ed Poor/8.

You were the creator of the {{Closed}} template, and perhaps others also. Since late May 2007, Conservapedia requires that all templates be properly documented. Please see Creating templates for instructions on this. If the template(s) are not documented, they will be deleted. Thank you for your co-operation in this.

Alternatively, if a particular template is no longer required, please delete it.

Also {{Fair use image}}.

Philip J. Rayment 03:13, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

categorize an article, please?

Hi Ed,

At your convenience, would you please categorize How do Wikipedians see Conservapedia?? I'm not at all sure where this should go. Regards, Aziraphale 19:45, 16 July 2007 (EDT) <-I think I can...

  • Done. This is my alter-ego speaking for me. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:24, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

European Discovery of America

Took care of it. Maestro 09:41, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! --Ed Poor Talk 09:42, 19 July 2007 (EDT)