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
- hate speech
- mental illness
- Arthur Robinson - Christian, scientist, home school advocate
- Ann Coulter - must add her thoughts re: liberals
- "why are Jews so successful" - need a good title for this
- Todd Beamer - 9/11 hero
- Colin Ferguson - LIRR shooter
- Values clarification
- junk pyramid - the illicit drug trade
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.
Use Google to search for Ed Poor probation 
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! :-)
Last 48 articles I started:
- Drew Barrymore
- The Standard Deviations of Writing
- Bobby Darin
- User contributions
- Alice Miller
- Gavin de Becker
- Outer space
- Corporal punishment
- Seung-Hui Cho
- Human nature
- Media Matters for America
- Ave Maria
- Alpha male
- Peter principle
- Murphy's law
- How do Wikipedians see Conservapedia
- Abortion controversy
- Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy
- Flying machine
- Anthropogenic global warming theory
- Debate:Is waterboarding torture
- Drunk driving
- Monopoly (board game)
- Mass murder
- Terms to avoid
- Edit conflict
- General Theory of Evolution
- Ich bin ein Berliner
- Instant messaging
- Runaway greenhouse effect
- Kyoto Protocol
- Air pollution
- Primate (church)
- Slamming the door
- Wikipedia:POV pushing
These are the previous 50 articles I started:
- Right to life movement
- Saline abortion
- Comfort women
- Silent scream
- Speech codes
- Balint Vazsonyi
- Theory and fact
- Wiki way
- Red link
- The word
- Getting Better
- Brian Mitchell
- How to write a Conservapedia article
- Unguided evolution
- Conscientious objector
- National Center for Science Education
- I Have a Dream
- Paul Simon
- Political spectrum
- Sit-ins at lunch counters
- Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks
- Diane Ravitch
- George Carlin
- The Manchurian Candidate
- Suffolk Punch
- Riders of the Purple Sage
- The Family Man
- Frank Sinatra
- To Sir, With Love
- Methods of contraception
- Blood type
- The Paradoxical Commandments
- Carbon dioxide
Who do you think you are?
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.
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
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)
Ed, can you do anything to ban Rschalfy? He keeps making the Adultery page say that Adultery is when a womwn sleeps with a man. It's ridiculous gender bias, and as a victim of the exact opposite happening to me, you can see why I'm so upset abou this utterly laughable article. 50something