User talk:Ed Poor/9

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/evolution - talk to me about Evolution here

My well-rounded but spiky alter-ego


"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 [1] 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;" [2] 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

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)

Venus de Milo

Re: unsourced material;

I did include the source. It's from the only source listed on the page. It's a print source, and there is no copy online. I used similar organization from the WP article as it was undeniably the most logical structure to present the information (organizational structure is not protected by copyright). No revert is necessary, but your erasing my work was, for the reason provided, unwarranted. Stryker 12:01, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I would greatly appreciate a reply. Stryker 13:31, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Suggest rewording of your recent Abortion contributions...

I agree with the statement "The organization boasts that it provides "sexual and reproductive health care", but this is rather transparent code for abortion and contraception" but think the wording could be improved. How about "...euphemisms for abortion and contraception." I'd help, but the article is locked. User:PheasantHunter/FullSig 00:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, their own web sites states, "Birth control is basic health care". That the transparent part of the code: they provide an online translation.
Or you think they are just using euphemisms? --Ed Poor Talk 01:06, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
I meant euphemism in the sense that they are using nice words to mask the unpleasant reality. Do you think the word euphemism is too soft? Or am I just making an usage error? User:PheasantHunter/FullSig 01:08, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Margaret Sanger

Ed can you get involved in the Margaret Sanger disagreement? Two users are bouncing back changes like a ping-pong ball. I see you have been heavily involved in the article and probably have a great deal of knowledge of the subject manner and can give a wise perspective. Certainly we don't want what is happening to continue. Thanks Learn together 01:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Ed, this user that we have discussed, PheasantHunter, is playing the system here. Please ignore LT's request. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)


That you're building an encyclopedia is exactly my point... to be a good encyclopedia, shouldn't it be free from bias?

Manchurian Candidate

QUEEN OF HEARTS Maestro 16:04, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Okay, okay. I get it. See my article on mind control. --Ed Poor Talk 16:16, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Hate Crime

Did you have a chance to check my proposed revisions to the Hate Crime article yet? What do you think?--Steve 11:48, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

I will soon give you my secrets on how to get a article ranked high by google in your email box

I will soon give you my secrets on how to get a article ranked high by google in your email box. I will be talking to Andy about making the supposed secrets (the material is publically available on the internet), available to all conservapedians. By the way, the article on homosexuality is climbing. It is now ranked #9 for Conservative 20:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Why would anything that helps the site get noticed be kept secret, especially from your fellow Sysops? This just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:24, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
Hey, I want in on this! Bohdan 21:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
"This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." Please send me an email. --Ed Poor Talk 21:28, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

quick note

Dear Ed,

I know you are enthusiastic about how to get article top search engine rankings. I promise to get back to you on this. I deleted your second sentence of the homosexuality article because it is too early in the article to discuss that. I was afraid that immediately the Protestants would stop reading the article after only getting to the second sentence which will hurt our ranking for the article. I think it is better to bring in the various religious bodies opinions later in the article. I did include the Assemblies of God and Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod position papers mainly because they are super highly ranked by and are in the 12-13 positions if memory serves. Conservative 13:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, of course your judgment was correct on that. It is one of my most frequent mistakes to put things in the intro which belong much farther down. Thanks for catching that! :-) --Ed Poor Talk 13:54, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Quick note

I just put the key information on how to get top search engine rankings for an article and article popularity at this location: Sysop:Talk‎. Conservative 16:33, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

categorizing articles

Hi, Ed! :)

Thanks for adding new articles. Please, though, categorize your articles when you create them; while there are those of us who will go through and clean-up the uncategorized articles, you know your subject better than we do.

For a list of categories, go here: Special:Categories. To add a category to your article, type two open brackets, then "category:" followed by the category you want. Just add two closed brackets and you're done! You can add as many categories as you feel are appropriate. Thanks!

PS The above is boilerplate, and I know you're a big cheese around here, but you'd still put a smile on this widdle editor's face if you'd categorize as you go along. :D Aziraphale 00:32, 4 August 2007 (EDT) <-iddy biddy cheese...

  • He was whipped by me not to add categories, I am afraid....and I am still a bigger pain in the ____ than you, Az.  ;-) --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:16, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
Wait. Even using categories that already exist? I mean, the one about the plane could be put in cat:aviation... in fact, I did. Should I stop? I will, I'm not arguing, I just didn't realize it was a COMPLETE moratorium. Aziraphale 01:23, 4 August 2007 (EDT) <-my bad...

You're funny, Azir. ;-) I made over 40,000 edits at Wikipedia before coming here. Every contributor has their strength. Some provide editorial direction, others are good at spell-checking and grammar, etc.

I think people should special in what they're good at, rather than each person trying to become a well-rounded "Jack of all trades and master of none." I think my unique contribution is to recognize what is the essence of conservative thought, and its relationship to the highest standards of scholarship. That is what makes CP a trustworthy encyclopedia, while the liberal competition like Britannica, Encarta, and Wikipedia are turning into dust before our very eyes.

Welcome to the 21st century renaissance! --Ed Poor Talk 20:35, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

Er, ok. I'm so rarely nonplussed, but you've managed it. In any case, I won't bother you with this again. Aziraphale 23:48, 6 August 2007 (EDT) <-over and out...
Gee whiz, I didn't mean to make you mad. Tell you what: figure out how to remave the incorrect category from my user talk page, and I'll categorize the next 10 articles I create. Okay? --Ed Poor Talk 23:57, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

(unindenting)Hi Ed - sorry for the miscommunication. I'm not mad, I'm genuinely befuddled (puzzled, perplexed, I usually think of it as sort of unblinking stare of incomprehension ;)) by the response you gave. However, a)you clearly mean it, b) it ain't worth fighting about, and c) in any event, you grossly outrank me.

Not that I want to hold you to some kind of bet (I continue to enjoy categorizing, why else would I have done thousands of them?) but the problem with your page was that you had the "TemplateDocRqd" on your talk page, which was an uncategorized template and thus was automatically making this page that category. I don't the much about wikis, I just clicked on stuff until I found a relationship. :) Aziraphale 00:13, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Finding relationships is good! It's what got me interested in math. For example, I found out that for the price of a cup of coffee, I can feed an entire third-world family for a day. So I multiplied that by the number of days in a year and again by the number of starving people in the world in 1966. Guess what the relationship was between that figure and the dollar amount that Americans spent on tobacco or alcohol?! (See famines, famine relief).

Editing the abuse page

Hi Ed, I saw that you just removed my complaint about Karajou on the abuse page. Can you contact me about the matter. My aim ID is orderob, and my email address is Thanks. User:Order 9 August, 15:50

If you still have a complaint, you can email me. Please use the link on the left, "E-mail this user". --Ed Poor Talk 17:38, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
Despite several tries in the last few month, I never receive any of confirmation emails that I asked the system to send me. If you don't contact me I'll have to talk to you in public. User:Order 10 August, 9:50


I am going in and out of articles but I don't see the counters (number of times page accessed) moving up at the bottom of the page. I am using firefox now which I just started. What is going on? Conservative 13:52, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't know. Maybe the web site doesn't count multiple visits by the same user. --Ed Poor Talk 13:57, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Peloponnesian War

I think it would be best to incorporate the content of Second Peloponnesian War into Peloponnesian War, since it is the same conflict (the "second" is usually omitted). I am checking with you because you create Second Peloponnesian War. Is this OK? --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 14:11, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, please go ahead and do that. I only created that stub so it wouldn't show up 17 times in Special:WantedPages. --Ed Poor Talk 14:32, 10 August 2007 (EDT)


Hello Mr. Poor, would you mind helping me understand the warning on my talk page - I got it just a few minutes ago, however with no details of why - and since I have yet to see a response from the 'warner' (who I messaged multiple times - first a short one, then more explanation in a second, then I combined the first and second and added a bit) with absolutely no success. If I am damaging the project in any way I would like to know, as in my mind - while I used to spend a tad bit too much time in the debate - most of my edits have been helpful. If you don't have time to explain it then don't worry about it - I appreciate you taking the time to read the message regardless - thanks so much. --Iduan 18:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I didn't realize the response would be on their talk page - my mistake.--Iduan 19:00, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

It's not challenging "us" - "us" didn't write that article- I'm saying that that's a controversial statement that should probably have a source to it - just like if it was the reverse it should have a source - because frankly I could probably find a bunch of sources saying the reverse is true - and I could probably find a bunch of sources saying it's not true - so just because some politician said something doesn't make that something true.--Iduan 10:57, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Reminding me of the context would be nice, especially when contesting a ruling. By the way, you are this much away from being blocked as a time-waster.
Less talk and more productivity is what I want. Otherwise, be elsewhere. --Ed Poor Talk 13:32, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
Uhh are we going back to that? Don't worry about that anymore - I'm way over that issue. But jeeze, I wasn't aware that you were evidently kinda pissed at me - however I think if you talk to other users (especially TK - who I've done extensive work with and who I go to for advice) you'll notice that most my edits are productive.--Iduan 16:37, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Commonly Misspelled Words

Ed, that's an excellent site feature! DanH 21:45, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

User:Interiot deserves at least half the credit, for creating the "search for mispeeled words" template! ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 21:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)


Hello Mr. Poor - a few days ago I emailed you, but I'm afraid the email didn't go through, so I'm posting a quick note here. Can I have some background as to why Western Hemisphere was deleted? I created it to contrast Eastern Hemisphere, and I thought I included enough info for a stub (i.e. which continents, what determines it etc.), but unfortunately you thought other wise. So again, if you have time I'd appreciate some feedback.--Iduan 12:45, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Is "why was it deleted" code for "please undelete it"? --Ed Poor Talk 23:41, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
Sorry for the wait in the response - I didn't notice you had commented back. No it's not code for anything - I'm just wondering why it was deleted, just to make sure I don't repeat a mistake, it's just thinking back to it I really don't recall any major deficiencies, but obviously there was one, so I was just wondering if you could inform me of it as I have created a few articles now - and plan on continuing to do so, so again, I'd like to not repeat the mistake--Iduan 10:36, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hey, since you are up, please look at that CSS stuff on my talk page, and add it in if you think it is harmless.....thanks! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:30, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

probability article

In response to your comments on my talk page, I think I'll leave this topic to you (barring a few minor additions). I don't have much interest in 6th grade math. By the way, can you provide a copy of the content you deleted please, or at least the stuff I added. It might be useful if I contribute to another project, or just for my own reference. Thank you. I've also responded on my talk page, please reply wherever works best for you. Bronzefinger 17:29, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

No. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here. And if you refuse to make your writing understandable at the 6th grade level, then you're contributing to the wrong project. --Ed Poor Talk 20:44, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

The definition referring to "sample space" was actually fairly plain English. A 6th grader should be able to comprehend it. As it is now, the article doesn't give a proper definition, only some examples illustrating the principle vaguely. User:Order 17 august 13:10 (AET)

  • Gosh, I wonder what is wrong, or "beneath" any editor, in making something understandable for the very people who started this whole thing? And what is wrong with providing more than one explanation? I could almost hear Bronzefinger sniffing in disgust at the thought of making his intellectual offerings intelligible to kids! So silly.... --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 23:13, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

I am all for making it understandable. And i took a look at the definition that was deleted, and to my surprise it was understandable. I am not against adding a few extra examples to illustrate the concept. But an article on mathematics should try to be more than a collection of examples. User:Order 17 august, 13:20 (AET)

In my defence, I support makes the article understandable. In fact, I tried my best to do so in the material that was removed, providing examples for each concept, and trying to give an intuitive interpretation. It isn't clear to me which parts of the article were unclear. For the benefit of Order, the article was deleted, then restarted, so some of my material is not in the page history.

I think the current article seems a reasonable introduction, but I still think most of the ideas that were removed (including the probability of both of two events, or either one, occurring, and the appropriate formulas, and the concepts of independence, bayes' theorem, and conditional probability), have a place in an article on probability. In retrospect, I'm not sure if the set theory bits are necessary to start with, as I didn't really use them very much. I may contribute a version of the things that were deleted, without the set theory, if that is acceptable. If so, then a copy of the deleted material may be useful, to act as a guide. If not, there's not much I can usefully add to the article as it stands. Bronzefinger 12:53, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

The article needs to introduce the topic gradually. Ideally, a sixth grader should be able to understand it. If there are advanced concepts (or novel terms like "sample space"), these can be introduced later on.
How much experience do you have, writing encyclopedia articles? Or teaching math? I've been writing for online encyclopedias since 2001. I'm also an experienced math tutor.
Do you understand the concept of beginning with simple ideas and gradually building on them to explain more complex ideas? --Ed Poor Talk 10:41, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
I would tend to agree that we should introduce things gradually. I tried to add examples and explanations for each concept, but I would have no objection to have more examples. Were there any particular parts you thought I needed to elaborate on, or I went too fast on? As for the sample spaces bit, I agree that it probably wasn't need to start with, and similarly the set theory notation (, and , which could in retrospect have been replaced by "or" and "and".
As for my experience, I've been editing for Wikipedia since at least 2003, writing on a variety of entries. I've written some entries on h2g2, including this one: [3], an attempt to explain group theory to beginners. I've also written some material on graph theory for Wikibooks. On Wikipedia and Wikibooks (and h2g2), I am Silverfish. Bronzefinger 11:25, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
Since it seems that yo have to give credentials to be heard or taken seriously, I got a degree in math, in cs, am working on probability, and teach, and am writing about it, and indeed you should start with the beginning. Right now the definition is inadequate, IMO, because the fact that probabilities are "percentages" is misleading. "Percentages" is about how to represent probability, not about what probability is. It would be like defining the the United States as the country that can be abbreviated with 3 letters. It is very important, especially for 6th graders, to make sure that there is a distinction between the concept, and how you represent it. Order 22:18, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I think I've seen your Silverfish name at Wikipedia. I have no specific suggestions, and please don't take my reversion as a "signal" to cease and desist! :-)

I want you to continue explaining probability, just begin with a gentle introduction. Bear in mind that a huge "percentage" (!) of English-speaking people did poorly in math at school.

We need to understand probability and statistics, because a lot of physical science and life sciences are based on these. You can't understand global warming without this kind of math; see correlation, linear regression, etc.

If you prefer to write only about advanced topics, that is fine. But even then, try to gear the intro at least to the sixth grade level whenever possible. In fact, I'm going to propose that as an official guideline for science and math articles in general. --Ed Poor Talk 12:29, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I think I'll leave the probability article for the moment, although I'll probably edit it at some point, and I've got some ideas on how to approach the subject. I'll probably concentrate on statistical testing at the moment, as there are quite a few gaps there. In particular the article on statistical significance, which seems like a good place to give a basic explanation of statistical testing. i'll try where possible to give an intro that 6th graders can understand. Bronzefinger 13:54, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for uploading

Thanks for uploading the image. DaiseyCutter 17:48, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

My pleasure (I think). It's a really creepy message, and I'm not surprised that Yoko Ono (who broke up The Beatles) was praising it. It's like that Tom Clancy novel about the environmentalist group that wanted to kill the entire population of the planet with a plague: Rainbox Six. --Ed Poor Talk 17:51, 18 August 2007 (EDT)


Just blocked cabsmith as my sock or something. In any event, is DanH associated with wp in someway? DaiseyCutter 18:29, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Liberty Bell

Hi Ed, I was wondering why you reverted my edit to "Liberty Bell" ? The info is accurate and sourced. Also deleted Liberty Bell image, which is in the Public Domain and from a government website. What was inaccurate or objectionable about the edit or photo? Thanks, Tasha --- Taj 19:57, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I followed the link. The source didn't mention the composition of the bell. I didn't see the image at the image link either.
You can't just say, "Somewhere on that big web site you'll find the info." We need the exact page. --Ed Poor Talk 19:59, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
Ed, with all due respect: how ridiculous. The info is factual. The link leads to the US government National Park Service Site. The photo is there, as is the info. Why not at least check it out yourself, or Google the info, as I did, to confirm it with multiple sources, before reverting the article? I've been here many months and made tons of good quality edits, so I think it's quite ridiculous to revert and delete my edits and photos an instant after I've made them for no reason whatsoever. If you had some doubt as to the accuracy, why didn't you post to the talk page or my talk page, or email me directly - you have my email and we've communicated before, and my email is enabled here at CP as well. But when you ruin good, factual contributions, how are we supposed to build an encyclopedia? Or am I to infer from this that my contributions are no longer welcome? Why not just erase every single contribution I've made then. Taj 20:13, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
Calm down. If I have made an error, don't threaten to quite. Just supply the accurate web link. Or if it was accurate, just copy it here again and I'll double-check.
We're not planning to stop paying your salary ... ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 20:16, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
I don't think the over-reaction was on my part. Instant deletion without cause? Why make things more difficult for editors? My history of edits is good; I stand by my work. Here is the direct link to the image you deleted - government website, .org - public domain: Taj 20:22, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Hey! That is not the link you had here, Taj! The one you put there didn't have the citations. The one you posted here does. I think you just mixed up the links. It's all good. Ed wasn't being mean at all, just doing his job here. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:28, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

United States National Academies

I asked Andy for help with this on his talk page but apparently there's some kind of taboo against that so I'm asking you ask well. I'm having a disagreement with TK about the status of the United States National Academies. He has categorized them as part of the US government; I am trying my best to explain that they are not a part of the government whatsoever. The Academies function as contractors with both government and private sector clients (I work for the Institute of Medicine). The Academies are no more a part of the US Government than Lockheed Martin is. TK insists that the Academies ARE a part of the government and won't change the category. Can you help me out here?--Porthos 15:42, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm not going to help you insert liberal bias into this encyclopedia. You are on the verge of having your account blocked. --Ed Poor Talk 10:10, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

User Boxes

Hey Ed,

I'm looking to create some userboxes, but I'm really confuzzled as to how. I read the pages on the subject, but I still don't see exactly how you create them. What I'd like to do is to be able to take certain things like this [4] and re-create them. Can you shed any light on this? Thanks! Mskreuz 19:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

We are focusing more on producing good articles right now. I can set up a user box for you as a reward for proposing and completing a writing plan. --Ed Poor Talk 09:50, 21 August 2007 (EDT)


No, you're not pedantic, I just am not good at wording things clearly. DanH 18:53, 22 August 2007 (EDT)


Well, you don't need to thank me- but thank you anyway :D. Yeah I actually just had to make another change to it - this one was probably my most extensive despite the fact that it did the least. I essentially manually made the table into a class because the class was messing up the tables inside the table. I think i'm going to wait a few hourse before working with tables again ... I'm exhausted.;) But again - thank you for the nice words!--Iduan 10:00, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Faux pas or no?

Hello again Ed Poor - I was just looking over that page again - and I realized that for inexperienced users who wanted to add border styles to that table - well it would be quite a challenge - so I'm wondering if it would be a faux pas (so to speak) on conservapedia if I created one or two subpages of HTML table formatting (names to be decided) as templates to use to easily add the information - with about one param each. Would you be ok with that and would everyone else? Thanks for the help.--Iduan 12:59, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Not a faux pas but de rigeur - we prefer to start off an article with a simple introduction which eases the reader into the subject. Challenging information should come later, and you are free to create sub-pages if that makes it easier for you (as a writer) or him (as the reader). --Ed Poor Talk 10:09, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

culture war article

In regards to the culture war article you didn't disclose this is a word for word copy of the footnoted source on the article page. I don't think this is a good practice. Also, you didn't say which Hunter you were referring to. Also, you had no links to other articles using the double brackets (for example, abortion). Conservative 17:17, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

weak atheism

hey friend -- what else are you after with weak atheism? Ungtss 18:54, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Ed isn't around right now...working on a project, I did check with him yesterday (sorry, I forgot to do it!) and he said to go ahead and remove the re-directs. If you could do that for me, it would be super, as I am in a meeting at the moment.... --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:23, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

I sent you a conciliatory email

I sent you a conciliatory email. Conservative 20:15, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Human Rights Watch

ummmmmm.... why was my article deleted? I spent days writing that thing and I'm not very happy about it being deleted without even a discussion. I love conservapedia, but seriously, this is enough to make me feel like giving up.

Sadly, --Tash 21:20, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here."
Your article presents HRW in far too good a light, just as HRW itself presents Communists and other thugs in far too good a light.
Conservapedia has no NPOV policy. Rather it seeks to be objective and trustworthy. Neutrality is only for cases when facts are in dispute. It's clear that HRW is biased. Didn't you follow the ref I left? --Ed Poor Talk 21:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps you could restore it for him and let him put it in his user namespace to correct and add to it? I know he spent a long time on it. Bohdan 21:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Oh, okay. That's better than a deletion. And on second thought, I might have just replaced his version with mine. Maybe I'll do that instead, eh? --Ed Poor Talk 21:38, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

First off, thanks for restoring the article, I'll be working on it this week....

Regarding your statements about the article, I do not understand what you mean by my article being to easy on Human Rights Watch. If you read the article it is very critical of the organization. For example, I include a statement from Alan Dershowitz which states "It turns out that [Human Rights Watch] cook the books about facts, cheat on interviews, and put out pre-determined conclusions that are driven more by their ideology than by evidence. These are serious accusations, and they are demonstrably true……... Human Rights Watch no longer deserves the support of real human rights advocates. Nor should its so-called reporting be credited by objective news organizations."

The article is also critical of HRW "war against Isreal". For example among others, I placed this quote from Morton Klein, the President of the Zionist Organization of America, which states,"for Human Rights Watch to call on Israel and Jews not to live in Judea and Samaria is simply racist.

You stated that we need to see numbers on the proportions of bias in the organization, I included those. For example I cited a study of HRW reports which showed that they heavily covered Israel's "abuses" while downplaying Hezbollah's.

From the History section of the article HRW has been critical of both of the United States recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A HRW report alleged that there was, “excessive use of force by U.S. troops.” They state that they were, "deeply concerned about the consistent reports we are getting about women, children and unarmed civilians being killed." Even though they admitted that they did not have complete reports from the ground in Iraq. [11]

Another one Jeri Laber, one of the founders of HRW, stated, "Americas Watch reports … were eagerly read in the United States by people who deplored the Reagan policies." [5] Critics claimed that Human Rights Watch painted a bad picture of the freedom fighters in Latin America, while glossing over the abuses of their communist governments.

I'm being to nice to HRW??

I confused to say the least but regardless will be working on it. Your most grateful servant:) --Tash 22:03, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, Tash. With friends like me, who needs enemies? I should not have been so hasty with your treasured work.
As a math expert, I sometimes get furious at people (not you! :-) who magnify minor statistics while minimizing major ones. The textbook example is the New York Times which wrote dozens of articles about supposed human rights abuses in Chile while only 2 articles about the million-man Cambodian genocide.
It means to me that either they think South Americans are more valuable as human beings than Asians - or more likely, that they have an ulterior motive.
It seems I have misplaced my "fury" and splashed some of my "venom" in your direction. I most heartily apologize. Please forgive me for me error and keep up the good work!
No problemo, it was a shock (I just fell out of my chair when I saw it was deleted ...:).... No hard feelings. On your point about numbers, just look at Iraq. The Libs and HRW want us to pull out and leave millions to die in a sure to happen civil war while at the same time wanting us to go into Darfur where 250,000 or so people have died. Not to say we shouldn't do anything about Dafur but who ought to have their "human rights" protected often seems to be defined by the left by what is politically convenient (aka, what makes the other politic party look bad).--Tash 22:21, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Yes, remind me to tally up the human cost of communism - it is at least 20 times as much as Hitler's Holocaust. Liberals are notoriously poor at math and science.--Ed Poor Talk 22:36, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

I sent you another email

I sent you another email. Conservative 21:30, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

homosexuality article and various churches views

Ed, I put some info on the talk page of homosexuality. I hope you agree with me regarding more research being needed and the placement of the material within the article. Conservative 21:53, 28 August 2007 (EDT)


Oh, stop already with the emotionalism.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Emotionalism means an excessive reliance on emotion for decision making. It does not mean being emotionally affected. My decisions on Talk:Atheism are driven by an effort to describe the subject matter in a logical, straight-forward way. I find the desire of some editors to make it a polemic very saddening. That's not emotionalism. It's honesty.

Any contribution to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. He doesn't have to justify his deletions to you.

When faced with an unexplained deletion of a mass of cited, sourced, accurate, neutral material, an editor has three choices: 1) revert war; 2) ignore; 3) attempt to discuss. 1 is a waste of everybody's time. 2 leaves the article a shambles. I chose 3. What's wrong with that?

Actually, a lot of the article is poorly written, and senior editors often simply don't have time to justify every change.

IMO, The article has been written poorly by the same senior editors who refuse to justify their edits. All attempts at improvement have been summarily reverted by those same editors to maintain the shambles.

Ironically, one of the difficulties in discussing atheism is the burden of proof. It would be good for all of us if, rather than "demanding an answer", those of us who "want something" would take the burden of proof on their own shoulders.

The burden of explanation is on the editor who makes an edit. Three editors collaborated to develop the section in question, and it remained for about a day and a half. There was a great deal of discussion and nuancing that went into it, and I think it's pretty good, and speaks for itself. One editor then deleted the whole thing, calling it "Garbage." IMO, the burden is on the editor deleting the material. Do you disagree?
From the tone of your comments, I sense that I have angered you in some way. I want you to know that I have nothing but the utmost respect for you as I recall the old days at Wikipedia, and I hope we can work together on making Conservapedia viable. Ungtss 11:49, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Oh. Oh, my. "With friends like me, who needs enemies," eh? How sad it is that those on the same side cannot even recognize an ally! I salute your efforts, sir, and I shall try to be more cooperative in the future. Thanks for setting me straight. --Ed Poor Talk 12:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
No worries -- I look forward to it. Fog of war can be nasty, can't it:)? Ungtss 13:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Maybe this was an instance of friendly fire. --Ed Poor Talk 15:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Regardless, I am close to removing it, and asking others to have a go at it. This does not mean exclusion of anyone currently working on it. However the concerns we have with the article have yet to be addressed, which does show a pre-disposition to maintain the status quo of the current offering. That is indeed troubling. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:02, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Sorry, Ed...I have tried to communicate with you about this, and you will not discuss. As you know, my public posts as to policy and high-profile articles, are never my own invention, but I am merely a conduit. This discussion belongs with the article, no? You need to check your email. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)


Hey Ed Poor - thanks for removing that comment from my talk page! I was planning on doing so - but I wasn't sure if that would only result in more comments on my talk page ... which I was trying to avoid given the intenseness of the situation. Also - in case you didn't know/haven't seen it - I've really worked on HTML table formatting since the last time you commented - and while it's not exactly the best article in the world - I think it's been improved (I only tell you this because as the creator of the article you probably have some degree of interest in it). I'm probably going to avoid the Main Page talk for now - as the debate has taken over - however I really do respect you for, well - "manning the front of civility" so to speak. Talk to you later, --Iduan 16:32, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Ahh I just got your message. To answer your questions: while I'm fairly sure of how those variables are decided upon, I wouldn't want to state it as fact without being positive - so I'll do some research right now and get back to you.--Iduan 16:33, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, both for HTML table formatting (which is novel and useful!) and for taking time to deal with Poverty. It's not easy to "be calm when something's going on" (to paraphrase Cat Stevens). --Ed Poor Talk 16:38, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Well it turns out I knew a bit less than I thought. I found two clear-cut methods of determining the poverty line and whether or not people are in poverty.

  1. Social security - Essentially this assumes that whatever the government is willing to guarantee in income is the poverty line.
  2. The United Nations - This one I knew a small amount about - Amartya Sen created the Human Development index, which uses several factors such as life expectancy to determine where countries are in development. To find out the exact formula I went to Wikipedia - and if you bear with me, this is kinda cool. They factor in life expectancy, knowledge (through literacy and gross enrollment index) and standard of living - through the log of the GDP per capita. This image shows each country and uses colors to show where every country in the world is - dark green = best, dark red = worst, yellow and orange are in the middle. this article from wikipedia shows the math behind it all. So yeah - hope that answers everything. --Iduan 16:49, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
I glanced at the WP article, but it doesn't say anything to answer our question: is poverty in America getting worse or getting better? According to the Hoover Institution, the last 30 or 40 years have seen tremendous victories in the War on Poverty which contradict the 11% poverty rate statistic which Bush critics and free trade critics keep waving around.
America's "poorest 20%" enjoy an enviable level of prosperity. The reporting system is screwed up. --Ed Poor Talk 17:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Oh I'm sorry - I thought the links I provided said everything. I was talking about the HDI index - my mistake then, sorry - I really don't want you to think I'm a liar or anythign. Honestly I'm not really sure what you're talking about. I was answering the question how is the poverty line determined.--Iduan 17:31, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Sen's HDI is interesting, but rather vague. Are people better fed or not? I just read that the percentage of underweight children went down from 8 percent to 4 percent in the last 30 years. This is inconsistent with a steady poverty rate.
Other factors are: access to medical care - up to nearly 100%, if you live near a hospital. Hospitals no longer turn down the uninsured or those who cannot pay.
I'm not interested in general "measures" but in specifics like how many people have a flush toilet inside their home? How many children can go to school (i.e., don't have to stay home working on the farm or go out to a factor)?
I want to know what factors are measured to determine "poverty line". Please find out, and then put that information into the article. --Ed Poor Talk 17:38, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Number 2 was how to figure it out - but I'll gladly add the info in a bit -although right now i'm a bit too busy soon - but definitely today.--Iduan 17:40, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
  • "Poverty Line" includes those with air conditioning and cable TV. Hardly benchmarks of poverty among the citizens of the world. And hardly insignificant in considering the deceit of those citing poverty in America. Living "hand-to-mouth is hardly poverty as most of the world understands it, and is merely another example of people using revisionism to defame the United States. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:44, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
We're not debating that - Ed Poor just wanted to know how they determine the poverty line.--Iduan 17:47, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, understood. That was his response, it was bogus, and I was merely citing some reasons it is. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:03, 29 August 2007 (EDT)


Hello Mr. Poor.

I disagree with your renaming of Panentheism -- they are related and intertwined but yet still subtly different.... one can be a Panentheist without abiding process theology.... one can be a process theologian without accepting all Panentheism has to say.... and there is enough material for two individual articles, as to which I point to the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Pandeism 21:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I sent you a humorous email

I sent you a humorous email. Conservative 21:32, 29 August 2007 (EDT)


Ok, I'll attempt to limit my responses - however given that you posted multiple times today I replied to both of those post and to a comment by RobS. The reason I kept re-pasting the paragraph was just so Rob wouldn't have to scroll up a lot to look at it - it was meant as a convenience thing - not an attack.--Iduan 23:14, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

  • I have previously warned you to stop with the talk page posting, and the constant arguments. It does your case no good at all. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 23:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Wiki question

Ed, you seem pretty knowledgeable with wiki related matters... do you know if there's a way to sort the Special:Wantedpages page (perhaps by entering a parameter manually into the URL)? I'm trying to get rid of all the wikilinked dates, and it would be tons easier if I could sort them alphabetically. Thanks. JazzMan 00:02, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Jazzman, that would require PHP or SQL programming. I'm too busy with another project to get into that here. --Ed Poor Talk 11:40, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

No problem, Ed. I didn't know if it needed programming or if the infrastructure was already there, but not obvious. Thanks anyway. JazzMan 16:13, 31 August 2007 (EDT)


Dear Ed

The Finkelstein story,2933,295230,00.html IS important as it shows how Fox News is not living up to its reputation. It is merely repeating the liberal propaganda. I challenge anyone to show where Finkelstein has made any statements that are anti semedtic or radical.

If you could please unblock my Dollanganger account I could answer the question. I promise not to repost the Finkelstein story but you should reconsider it as relevant.


Your post is tortured and convuluted. I can't make sense of it.
First you accuse Fox News of not being conservative enough. Then you change the subject by the anti-semitism of Finkelstein's book.
If you would email me a clear account of the contributions you intend to make to Conservapedia, I will gladly discuss your account with other staff members. --Ed Poor Talk 18:36, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Memory lane

Ed, I was taking a walk down memory lane the other day, and found a comment on your WP talk page from 2005. [5] Do you remember anything about this, like where the discussion on WP User:Rangerdude's proposal on an anti-stalking policy (which i think is what this relates to) occurred? Thanks. Rob Smith 14:57, 21 September 2007 (EDT)


Want to give it another try with team one (to be named) in the contest--Tash 19:08, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Sure, I just need help with the scoring system. I'm so productive that I don't want to slow down to "take credit" for anything. Can you coach me a bit on how to "score points" for my contribs? --Ed Poor Talk 10:53, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
I don't understand the scoring system myself since Hoji and a few other guys did it last time but I believe that is one of the things we're going to be working on this week--Tash 17:14, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
The contest begins today (Sep. 28) at noon, so please check out our team page (if you already haven't). The scoring rules are fairly simple, but I can help keep track of your contributions also if you would like. Thanks,--Tash 08:59, 28 September 2007 (EDT)


Someone said it was ironic that you blocked that user for one day. I don't know if you saw his comments to Conservative earlier. He thought conservative made that edit and he said:

We should all take this personally; we should all disown Conservative, ban him at least so he cannot spew his hatred any further. I have never felt more hatred for one person more in my entire life than right now (IE, User:Conservative)
[6] Now that's ironic! Bohdan 14:50, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
However, I should say that I greatly disagree with your interpretation of the protest. But I just thought I would point out that irony. Bohdan 14:58, 26 September 2007 (EDT)


I’m sorry, but for the first time on CP, I’ve actually been appalled by something. Sure, Ken’s antics with regard to his pet articles were funny, Andy’s belief that he is a perfect human provides no ends of corruptions of LOL, and your ‘I am a wiki-ronin’ facade frankly gives me giggles. But less, now.

  • You said that the monks were violent. Those wouldn’t happen to be the ones carrying banners reading ‘love and kindness must win over everything’, would they? Care to give us some evidence to back up your claim.
  • Perhaps you were referring to the reports by the Irrawady News about the SPDC soldiers shaving their heads, and being ‘’agents provocateur’’ among the monks? No. I thought not. You haven’t really read many reports, Ed, have you? To quote our LJer friends, confirm/deny.
  • Just when it was bad enough, you then round it off with some bizarre comment about how ‘East Asians’ not being capable of peaceful protest, as opposed to Americans, with your ‘traditions’. There’s nothing like blind prejudice, all unsourced, of course.
  • ’in order to imply falsely that a peaceful protest was suddenly and inexplicably turned into an atrocious violation of human rights’ - I can explain this! The junta fires upon innocent, peaceful protesters … because they’re not great fans of human rights, and don’t want pressure put on them to allow people basic dignity.
  • Bush, fan of the Burmese military oligarchy? Wuh? How does that gel with the massive sanctions he’s just imposed on them? Oh, they’re not going to do much, but at least the man is trying.
  • Do you have some kind of sympathy for the genocidal, oppressive military junta? Just asking.

If you want to respond to any of these points, just remember that you have an account there. --[7]

I'll consider it, but the problem has deeper roots than this. --[8]

So what do you want to work on, roots or branches? I can start either way. --Ed Poor Talk 15:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Depends how holistic a view one takes. Do the roots of the problems in Burma go back all the way to the first Mon/Pyu conflicts, or do we take a more narrow focus? Still, I think that our time, to use worryingly Mussolini-like phraseology, is better spent with action, not words. CP wouldn't be interested in taking part in the various Amnesty e-campaigns about Burma, would it? It would greatly raise it in my estimation. --[9]
Amnesty International has a well-deserved reputation for partisanship. They vigorously oppose "dictatatorships" which aren't particularly hostile to America, while largely turning a blind eye to much worse human rights violations perpetrated by America's enemies. Not a good place to start.
How about defining a human rights standard? For example, do you think people everywhere ought to have the right to "petition the government for redress of grievances" as we do in America? Should everyone everywhere have the freedoms of speech, press and religion? Should our outrage and disgust toward a goverment be in proportion to how many people's rights they violate, or should we just magnify a few cases to advance the liberal agenda? --Ed Poor Talk 15:57, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Let's move the whole thing to Debate:Right and wrong in Myanmar.

Anyway, sorry for my human frailty, but I'm going to sleep now - 5 hours of lectures about extraterritoriality is not going to go well on a few hours' sleep. Fear not, however, for, unless peace, happiness, freedom and human rights break out over Burma overnight, then I'll be back tomorrow :-) ! --User:sayasan

Concerning any future blocks


I hope you will remember that the debate page is a place where opinion is allowed, and therefore I should not be blocked for anything I or others have said there (namely User Order) I also responded to you on the Myanmar talk page. I would appreciate an open discussion with you about this, so I'm kindly asking you not to block me. Graham 15:15, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

If there a rule that says "anything goes" in debate, I was unaware of it. Insults close down discussion. --Ed Poor Talk 15:24, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't feel I have insulted you in any of the topics I have posted in so far today, and if I have please let me know and I will remove it instantaneously. If you find some time, can you respond in some of the Burma related topics? Graham 15:26, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Good. Keep it that way, and I won't have cause to block you again. :-)--Ed Poor Talk 15:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

courtesy notice

Ed, I wanted to courtesly inform you that I moved some of your material from one article to another article where it is a better fit. It is a small matter but I still wanted to inform you as a matter of courtesy. I moved your "70 years of miracles account" as the professor was a deist so I moved the material to the deism article. I do have some interesting material on miracles that I will share with you on your user page at a future date. I hope you find it interesting.

By the way, glad to hear the Wikipedia matter was cleared up.Conservative 21:21, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Much better at Deism than at Atheism, if you ask me. And the block was reversed quite promptly. --Ed Poor Talk 21:34, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Exciting news

I just sent you some exciting news to your email box. Conservative 18:58, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I am sending you an email in two minutes

I am sending you a private email in two minutes. Conservative 20:51, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

I just emailed you

I just emailed you. please do not revert until we discuss things. Conservative 21:03, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

I just sent you a email

I just sent you a email. Conservative 15:37, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Correlation does not imply causation

This was not copied from Wikipedia. The first two sentences were similar, but the rest of the article is unique. Please restore it.ConserveATory 16:11, 13 October 2007 (EDT)


If they are merely female homosexuals, we may say so in an entry. We may say too that is also called sapphism or female homosexuality.

Actually there is just a link to a very important article, but may be too large.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:03, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

However you think it should be handled, is fine with me. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 18:08, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

OK, working on it. I will let you know if I need help to change the redirect tool. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

  1. 20:46, 15 May 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Lesbian" (content was: '#redirect LesbosThis article has been nominated for deletion. See Conservapedia:AFD Ed Poor/9')
  2. 14:17, 15 March 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Lesbian"
  3. 19:46, 13 March 2007 MountainDew (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Lesbian"
  • I have no idea where this was being talked about, and who all was involved aside from Ed, Joaquin and you, but the above should be a clear enough indication to all of you. If you don't like it, start checking with others before you act! "Others" means me, and the rest of the Site Admins. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 19:15, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

They're back! --Ed Poor Talk 16:11, 28 November 2007 (EST)


How do we suggest news stories for the front page. How about this outrage:

What would have happened if someone dressed up as a rabbi or immam and stormed a synagogue or mosque? Everwill 10:36, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

A quote of the section I should look at, would be helpful. --Ed Poor Talk 11:32, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

10,000 edits to Conservapedia

Congratulations! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:20, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, I only wish more of them were actual improvements to articles. I think around 40% was administrative stuff - like this reply to your compliment! :-) --Ed Poor Talk 15:37, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


I found a vandal named spoonboy. It seems that he deliberately changed information on the Post-Diluvian Diasporas article in order to make a mockery out of Conservapedia. He also messed up the link on the page. Please examine his edits and take action if necessary. Lukecorlando 22:05, 17 October 2007 (EDT)


Your new entry made me think of something. Have you ever read the book How to Lie With Statistics? I had to read it for stats class (twice actually; once in high school and once in college) and it seems like something you might be interested in. It's a bit old, but it's still in print and a very interesting read. HelpJazz 18:06, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

I've read it 2.8 times more than YOU have, so there! --Ed Poor Talk 18:10, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Meh, I'm still young I have time to catch up.
BTW, I was going to block you for 1 second vandalizing my page... then thought better of it :) Wouldn't want to dirty your clean block log (spotlessly clean, might I add!). HelpJazz 18:22, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
That's okay, my first block at Wikipedia was for 1 minute. I deleted Articles for deletion, because the system was so broken. This actually sparked a lively discussion and debate which led to significant improvements in the system, and my "deletion" was discussed at Wikimania in Europe.
Ah, those were the days. --Ed Poor Talk 18:39, 20 October 2007 (EDT)


Since when did the same-sex marriage movement "seek to destroy the sanctity of marriage"? Can you please remove this? It is obviously an uncited factoid.

to: Ed

Dear Ed,

I might be wrong but I think you are somewhat wiki tech and computer proficient. The reason I am writing to you is that there is a big problem right now and as a member of the Conservapedia team I thought you might help to resolve it.

With that in mind, please look at the private email I sent you. Conservative 22:23, 26 October 2007 (EDT)


Ed, if you need the full Wilcox Report, I got it. Rob Smith 16:43, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, but I don't know whether I need it. What I'm always looking for is ways to bring about world peace. If I can discover a way in which people are stirring up trouble with false accusations, would that help bring about world peace? --Ed Poor Talk 16:59, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
Just found this by Wilcox this morning, check out pages 90-92 [10]. Does this touch on what you are looking for? Rob Smith 17:06, 31 October 2007 (EDT)


Thanks. Also, I sent you an e-mail. HelpJazz 22:46, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

KAL 007

Please add whatever makes the article better. Karajou 09:16, 5 November 2007 (EST)


Thanks Ed. That was a sorely needed, and much important article. [11] Rob Smith 22:33, 6 November 2007 (EST)

"Rational Comments"

Hi, Ed -

I read your comment on my talk page. I'm sorry if it came across as heavy-handed, or as you implied, irrational - that was far from my attempt. My original comment, the one about the project "maintaining its credibility" was not meant as a slight - just the opposite: obviously I see the project as having standards (and credibility) that it must maintain - not "achieve," but maintain.

Sorry for any misunderstanding,

Dewey 18:20, 9 November 2007 (EST)

It's better to stick to the point, than to bring in the heavy artillery of "do as I say or risk a big loss". Fix the article yourself, or ask for specific help.
If no one pays attention on the talk page, ask TK, Andy, or one of the more active contributors (even me ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 19:15, 9 November 2007 (EST)


Hey Ed! So one of the first questions for our team is what our team name should be. If you have any ideas just get word out to TK, thanks (and remember: we're using a Machiavellian policy towards this contest: We must win - no matter what. lol, good luck!)--IDuan23:59, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Team Name: Supply Siders  --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 17:01, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Hey - just to let you know stubs do get points - they're just short new entries.--IDuan 16:50, 12 November 2007 (EST)

4 pt. to be exact. :P --~BCSTalk2ME 16:51, 12 November 2007 (EST)

I am not a troublemaker! Go bury your head! --~BCSTalk2ME 17:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)


Ed - given that Sschultz is not the first to ever create pages by copying (have you seen the ships registry of the United States Navy?) I've reverted your block of him. Also, given that there is an active debate - I would like to ask you to hold off on any more blocks until the debate reaches its conclusion. Let's not make things any more tense then they already are.--IDuan 20:30, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Exactly - 3 points. If he had truly counted them as most wanted - he would've gave himself seven points per article (4 for a short + 3 for most wanted) - which he did not.--IDuan 21:12, 12 November 2007 (EST)
Look again here, e.g., at census water. How many points did he claim for it? --Ed Poor Talk 21:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)
He claimed 3 points. Agreed? (I can tell because I see the multiplication at the bottom:101x3=303) - however, if he were counting it as most wanted it would've been 7--21:19, 12 November 2007 (EST)
One last time: he counted 4 points for it as a new article, plus 3 points for it as a "most wanted". Please note that all but 5 of his now articles were also listed a second times for "most wanted" credit. --Ed Poor Talk 21:53, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Ahh - I see what happened - lucky me, I looked at one of the 5 that wasn't both places and then assumed he had listed them once- alright you're definitely right there - and I just got your email by the way - sorry, my email client was screwing up and I couldn't log on - but I completely understand now.--IDuan 22:19, 12 November 2007 (EST)


Thanks Ed. Good to 'see' you here. Gofyylb 13:01, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Hey Ed

Are you sure you want your talk page to be a deletion candidate? (Check your category below) ;-) Learn together 14:15, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Please block moobies immediately! Luke 15:11, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I just sent you a private email

Dear Ed,

I know you were interested in something I sent you a message about earlier. My understanding of that topic has now increased as so I thought I would send you a private email. It will arrive in a minute or two. Conservative 19:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)


The post doc was in 1969-1970. The MD even older than that. I imagine a lot has happened in scientific research since Crichton last donned a lab coat. But more importantly, It would be hard to improve your stub because you did not even define the term: the phrase "consensus science" gets one hit - a wiki, at that - in an online dictionary search.

Essentially, the article as it stands now is some supporting quotes for an argument that is never revealed.Kind of a challenge to flesh that out. PaulH 16:01, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Google returns over 30,000 hits. [12] So what's you're point? --Ed Poor Talk 16:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)


Thanks for your comments, I've gone through the cricket articles and tidied them up. Next I'd like to create some articles on other cricketers like Don Bradman, Gary Sobers, Ian Botham and Glenn McGrath. What's the convention when a person has a knighthood, is this included in the title of the article. --Moronicorbit 15:55, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Good question. We currently have no policy on that. We currently have 17 pages starting off with the title "Sir" (not counting two that are not of people), eight of which are redirects to non-sir pages. Personally I have no problem with including "Sir" in the page title, but one long standing editor objected very strongly to even using the "Sir" title in the opening paragraph of Isaac Newton. I suggest using "Sir" in the page title, and they can always be moved to a non-"sir" title later if policy is set otherwise. What's your thoughts, Ed? Philip J. Rayment 17:57, 1 December 2007 (EST)
I don't think it matters one way or another, as long as we are consistent. We might borrow one of Wikipedia's guidelines: the principle of least astonishment. Let's not surprise the reader with an unexpected convention.
I'd be surprised to see an article entitled Sir Paul McCartney, even though I heard he had been "knighted". But Newton's from way back in the old days, when a title meant something. Sir Isaac Newton made a momentous contribution to science and thus to humanity as a whole. Paul McCartney's my favorite Beatle, and the Beatles are absolutely my favorite musical group ever! But entertainment just doesn't strike me as being of equal worth.
So I'd lean toward omitting "Sir" from cricket players, but if any of them have been knighted we could mention the fact somewhere in the article, especially if it was for something important.
But this raises a larger question. Are we going to do a series on European royalty at all? --Ed Poor Talk 19:14, 2 December 2007 (EST)
I don't see how it raises the question of European royalty; receiving a knighthood does not make one royalty, so that's a separate topic altogether. We have articles already on some European royals, and there's no reason we shouldn't have more.
Your suggestion of "the principle of least astonishment" sounds reasonable, although it doesn't make clear which way to go in specific cases, but surely adopting this principle would mean meant that we are not being consistent?
Philip J. Rayment 20:21, 2 December 2007 (EST)
Oh, I didn't realize that knights are not royalty. *blush*

--Ed Poor Talk 20:24, 2 December 2007 (EST)


Hey Ed - how come you reverted the substing of {{8c}}? I would think that a template that's that simplistic (as far as the little amount of text it has) should be substed in order to prevent excessive work for the server ...--IDuan 20:47, 2 December 2007 (EST)

If you can make it work, go ahead. I'll wait an hour ... ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 20:49, 2 December 2007 (EST)
Haha - wow? Is that a glitch or something? Well, in that case I'm just going to essentially copy and paste the text, if you don't mind--IDuan 20:53, 2 December 2007 (EST)
Ohh wow, now I get it - if a template is in a ref tag it can't subst itself. I'm going to do some research tonight and see if that happens on other wikis - and if it doesn't, I'll try and figure out why it happens here --IDuan 20:58, 2 December 2007 (EST)
I was gonna tell you, but I figured it would be better to let you find out the hard way. It is one of MediaWiki's few disappointments. Now that I know PHP, I suppose I could write a workaround, but who's got the time? --Ed Poor Talk 21:00, 2 December 2007 (EST)

"Strong atheism" article

Girls can't be atheists too? Claude 21:57, 2 December 2007 (EST)

No, that's not allowed. ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 22:23, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Request for photo upload

Hello Ed,

I expanded the kilt article earlier today, but it could really use a photo. Here is one of mine:

Since I do not have image upload status, could you upload it for me and attach it to the kilt article? Give it the filename "Kilt_07Tac_503.jpg" please.

JFPerry 17:26, 7 December 2007 (EST)

who says that there is a "commonly accepted model"?

To answer your question, this statement should have been attributed. "The commonly accepted model among transsexuals, and health care providers." This is most definitely strong support for such a statement provided by the overall trans community response to "The Man Who Would Be Queen". --Puellanivis 18:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Why did...

...this happen? The bit at the bottom, I'll confess to enough self-interest that I'm not worried about the rest of it. Aziraphale 18:49, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Was that an edit conflict that I handled badly? --Ed Poor Talk 23:58, 7 December 2007 (EST)
I dunno. I figured there was a chance it was interpreted as trolling and thought I'd come to you "privately" rather than air it out on the Main Page Talk. It seemed like you were cleaning out some other person's comment that you found inappropriate, but mine (and Andy's generally affirmative response) was gone as well, and was far enough removed (physically) from the other comment that an accident seemed unlikely.
Not accusing you of anything, exactly, just curious if it was a conscious decision and, if so, whyfor dost thou act? (Or something... :)) Aziraphale 01:00, 8 December 2007 (EST)
I must have goofed up somehow. Usually when I deleted comments it's on purpose. Stealth is for cheaters. --Ed Poor Talk 14:22, 8 December 2007 (EST)
<snicker> Fair enough. Aziraphale 16:29, 8 December 2007 (EST)


There's a Category:Food and drink and a Category:Food and Drink one of these needs a Category redirect. Any thoughts on which should be redirected, I believe the style manual points towards the uncapitalised drink. --Moronicorbit 14:53, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Better ask Andy if he can find anyone who knows how to do a Category redirect. --Ed Poor Talk 15:28, 10 December 2007 (EST)
The decision made at one time in regard to categories was to go with the capitalized version. The style of manual makes no reference to how this should be handled. As there are many more categories with the capitalized version, it may be wise to continue with the form that was being pursued. Learn together 15:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)
I actually prefer capitalization of categories, and non-capitalization of articles. It's just a style preference. Or maybe I hung around at Wikipedia too long before coming here. --Ed Poor Talk 15:45, 10 December 2007 (EST)