User:Ed Poor

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) at 19:52, 21 April 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
This user believes that evolution cannot explain the complexity of species.
Template:User NoArbBlk

Archives: 01 02

I am a SYSOP on this site. 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.

Articles I need to write


Folks, true Wiki's have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy.


My interests include history, religion, and science.

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]




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?

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.


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.

Proposed Block Policy

There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a proposed block policy Tell me what you think. --CPAdmin1 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Look at the content

It was discussion, not an article. AL 17:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I thought that was what the discussion page was for, I won't redelete if you put it back. AL 17:22, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

We aren't very well organized. That was the AFD page for the Adultery article. --Ed Poor 17:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)