Difference between revisions of "User:Ed Poor"

Revision as of 18:29, April 30, 2007

Archives: 01 02

This user defends people that refer to homosexuals as "faggots." Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions

Thoughts for the week:

• they don't like people they disagree with having MORE say in how things ought to be said
• I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me as a member

Userboxes This user believes that evolution cannot explain the complexity of species. Template:User NoArbBlk

I am a SYSOP on this site, elected unanimously by the student board on my 6th day here.

True wikis have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy.

Articles I need to write

• Honor killing, female genital mutilation, et al.
• hate speech
• mental illness
• Arthur Robinson - Christian, scientist, home school advocate
• Ann Coulter - must add her thoughts re: liberals
  • Godless (book)
• "why are Jews so successful" - need a good title for this
• Todd Beamer - 9/11 hero
• Colin Ferguson - LIRR shooter
• exorcism
• Values clarification
• junk pyramid - the illicit drug trade

Etc.

My interests include history, religion, and science.

I've also taught SAT math prep, so if your article has any errors in arithmetic or statistics, prepare for a shock. I might just delete your entire contribution.

I'm also pretty good at science, logic, history, etc.

If you have any trouble on the site, a question about my edits/blocks/redirects/protects etc. please post on my talk page or email me and I will address them ASAP. I am open to working with everyone who demonstrates a genuine will to improve this site through their work.

Ed Poor (talk • contribs • count)

Use Google to search for Ed Poor probation [1]

Subpages

/coulter

NPOV

Here are the most commonly violated principles of neutral editing at Wikipedia:

• It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.
• Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
• Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.
• Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
• Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising.
• A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.
• Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.

I am on probation at Wikipedia for trying to point out some of these problems and just might get my account blocked! :-)

New Pages

Last 48 articles I started:

1. Drew Barrymore
2. Cinderella
3. Education
4. The Standard Deviations of Writing
5. Islamist
6. Bobby Darin
7. Humiliation
8. User contributions
9. Mosaic
10. Alice Miller
11. Gavin de Becker
12. Outer space
13. Corporal punishment
14. Seung-Hui Cho
15. Conscience
16. Human nature
17. Healing
18. Universalist
19. Media Matters for America
20. Ave Maria
21. Alpha male
22. Peter principle
23. Murphy's law
24. Biologist
25. How do Wikipedians see Conservapedia
26. Abortion controversy
27. Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy
28. Flying machine
29. Anthropogenic global warming theory
30. Debate:Is waterboarding torture
31. Drunk driving
32. Scrabble
33. Martyr
34. Monopoly (board game)
35. Mass murder
36. Narnia
37. Terms to avoid
38. Edit conflict
39. General Theory of Evolution
40. Ich bin ein Berliner
41. Instant messaging
42. Runaway greenhouse effect
43. Kyoto Protocol
44. Air pollution
45. Rahab
46. Primate (church)
47. Slamming the door
48. Wikipedia:POV pushing

These are the previous 50 articles I started:

1. Right to life movement
2. Saline abortion
3. Comfort women
4. Silent scream
5. Speech codes
6. Balint Vazsonyi
7. Usage
8. Theory and fact
9. Rastafarianism
10. Wiki way
11. Red link
12. The word
13. Getting Better
14. Brian Mitchell
15. How to write a Conservapedia article
16. Unguided evolution
17. Fidelity
18. Conscientious objector
19. National Center for Science Education
20. Infrared
21. I Have a Dream
22. Paul Simon
23. Political spectrum
24. Infinity
25. Equality
26. Trawl
27. Orbit
28. Deduction
29. Sit-ins at lunch counters
30. Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks
31. Diane Ravitch
32. George Carlin
33. Donkey
34. The Manchurian Candidate
35. Wolves
36. Suffolk Punch
37. Manure
38. Riders of the Purple Sage
39. The Family Man
40. Brainwashing
41. Frank Sinatra
42. To Sir, With Love
43. Strider
44. Hate
45. Methods of contraception
46. Fornication
47. Idiot
48. Ellipse
49. Blood type
50. The Paradoxical Commandments
51. Carbon dioxide

Who do you think you are?

Userboxes I should not talk so much about myself if there were anybody else whom I knew as well.

Q: Is this your personal blog, or what?!

A: No, but it just so happens that nearly every word I type, link I create, article or template I start - gains instant and widespread acceptance.

Q: Isn't that a bit arrogant?

A: Okay, I guess you're right. Perhaps I should be more humble.

Explanations

There was a time when Wikipedia was a meritocracy, and I rose rapidly through the ranks then. I got Jimbo to create the Mediation and Arbitration committee's, so he wouldn't have to be the sheriff all the time. I became the first elected bureaucrat, and pioneered the system whereby admins could enforce rules without having to take everything before a committee.

But I didn't see the anti-elitism creeping up and choking the life out of the place. Larry Sanger was right.

My only worry about Conservapedia is that it might make the equal and opposite mistake; it has certainly been accused of it, hundreds of times. But senior staff have been amazingly tolerant of opposing ideas here so far and I reason to hope they will continue to do so.