User talk:Ed Poor/2

From Conservapedia
< User talk:Ed Poor
This is the current revision of User talk:Ed Poor/2 as edited by Jrssr5 (Talk | contribs) at 17:41, May 9, 2007. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi I have the same nick over here except without the ` Crackertalk 13:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Cool. Our IRC has spilled over into wiki. --Ed Poor 13:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, hi there, Ed! Glad to see you. Dpbsmith 18:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Hi, got your emails. Thanks. --Ed Poor 00:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Great edits, Ed. I'm learning much from you! --Aschlafly 00:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. It will take me some time to get used to conventions of this web site. Formatting isn't so different from Wikipedia, and I hope the social conventions aren't too hard to learn. So far everyone's been real patient and kind. :-) --Ed Poor 19:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Global Warming.....

Seems the kids were fighting, and not playing fairly. Let me know when have something, I just want to leave it locked until the kids go to bed, lol. --~ Terry Talk2Me! 02:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

  • PLEASE try to communicate before making large changes. Thanks. --~ Terry Talk2Me! 19:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Oh, sorry, the page move was too "bold" I guess. Want me to self-revert? --Ed Poor 19:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
  • LOL! Already undone by the time I got there and locked it. I made some comments in Talk. ;-) -- Take a look here as well...: [[1]] --~ Sysop-TK Talk2Me! 22:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


nice edit. --Hojimachongtalk 19:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. --Ed Poor 19:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

to: Ed

Ed, by all appearances you seem like a nice guy. The "dino battle" though is a fiasco. A staunch young earth creationist altered my material so it said it was indisputable fact for the creationist side. The aggressive evo types had their excesses as well. I really think that both sides need to work things out. I am for keeping it locked until some type of board policy is worked out or both sides works things out. Conservative 21:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Sure, no problem. On the other hand, if there are various creationist views, must we settle on one as the correct one? We might simply describe what the various views are.
  • Some creationists accept the Genesis account and regard the appearance of human beings as occuring 10,000 years ago (or a bit less).
  • Some other creationists accept the geological theory that the Earth is billions of years old and that mankind appeared around one million years ago.
Is it okay here to describe multiple viewpoints here? --Ed Poor 13:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
  • So long as the Creationist are not shut out, or made fun of, right Conservative? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 15:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Defintions: The definition of encylopedia, is from the "Oxford English dictonary" --Joobs 17:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Got a link I can follow to verify that? I'm only interested in verifiable knowledge, not random ideas. --Ed Poor 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Sure, Please let me know if you feel i've misinterpreted this in any way, I'm always open to constructive criticism! --Joobs 18:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

  • a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject, typically arranged alphabetically. [2]

I recall being told it was "ideas" but here it says "information". Perhaps I'm thinking of a different discussion thread. --Ed Poor 18:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Would I be off-base here thinking that ideas aren't necessarily facts? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 19:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Well, that was pretty much my angle on it. "Idea" is more general than "fact". A fact is supposed to be correct. --Ed Poor 20:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Maybe a sub heading "Theories" or the like? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 21:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)


Thanks for the kind words. I'll be around as often as the ship's deployment schedule permits. Niwrad 18:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you also for reading Additioner's edit and encouraging him!

Header change

Do you have a problem with that? --Horace 21:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I do. Wanna do something about it? Please refrain from ordering others about, for voicing their opinions. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 21:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
    • He just meant he didn't want me to change his attention-getting heading on the other talk page. This being mine, however, I think I'll just go ahead and change this heading. --Ed Poor 21:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Everyone needs to try and remember this is only the Internet. ;-) --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 21:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Good night all

The real world beckons. . . :-) --Ed Poor 22:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Sysop IRC....

  • "There is a sysop-only IRC channel. I gave the password to Hojimachong and he got on the channel earlier this evening. I don't know how to make a private wiki page for this, but I've heard it can be done, if you prefer taking that route. There's also e-mail"

I still wonder why this is being kept from me. Reading about it on Andrew's page was how I found out about it. No one has communicated to me about their being such a channel, or how to get to it. Seems mighty odd. Maybe it was made only for certain "clique" members? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 23:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Since most people read Aschlafy's talk page I mentioned it a few times and let the matter drop, not wanting to make a pest of myself. The irc net work is the chan is #conservapedia, Ed Poor made one for sysops #conservapedia-sysop *Click* --Crackertalk 23:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, Ed, I remember the discussion about the IRC channel for editors. This about the Sysop deal, was new. Anyway....from what I am seeing, there is very little communication or cooperation between Sysops here, which is a shame, but can only be changed by Andrew, and he isn't inclined that way. ;-) ----~ TerryK Talk2Me! 00:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Terry, please (1) email me, using the "E-mail this user" link which should (finally) work now; or (2) ask me to email you; or (3) go on #conservapedia when you see me (like now ;-) and ask me to tell you in a private msg. I'm actually eager to share this info! --Ed Poor 15:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Welcome to Sysop status!

Welcome, Ed, to Sysop status! The students elected you unanimously.--Aschlafly 13:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Really? Thanks!
Please give me much guidance on my new responsibilities. Pending detailed and specific instructions, I intend to watch for 'simple vandalism' and to periodically lock/unlock articles. In case of rude sniping nasty teasing and/or insults, I intend to apply ridiculously short blocks to show how ridiculous it is to be mean online. Stop me now, if this sounds arrogant! --Ed Poor 15:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


What we need is five or six citations showing that the Young Earth Creationist view of dinosaurs is not supported by valid scientific evidence; See the disputes ongoing at Tyrannosaurus rex and User Talk:Aschlafly. --Hojimachongtalk 16:11, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Gosh, I would think it was common knowledge that Young Earth Creationism is at odds with Geology and evolutionary Biology. It's a dispute over the age and/or authenticity of the fossils, isn't it? --Ed Poor 16:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservative does not want the sentence "however, this view is backed up by very little scientific evidence, and is regarded with skepticism outside of the young earth creationist community" appended at the end of the first paragraph of Tyrannosaurus rex. I think it's putting it nicely; there is NO evidence, and it is regarded as a joke by those outside the YEC community. --Hojimachongtalk 16:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I will unprotect that page and deal with the disputed sentence. Meanwhile, please check your email. --Ed Poor 16:18, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Blocking of Huey Gunna Getcha

I was not being ridiculous with my T-rex edit. The scientific discovery of nimals (t-rex, bigfoot, chupabacra, etc) is known as cryptozoology. You will find that the information I posted is entirely within the realm of this train of thought. Check the following sites [3] and [4]. I await your apology. --Huey gunna getcha 16:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I had no idea you meant that. Now that you're back, do please carry on.
Would you like to start an article on cryptozoology? --Ed Poor 16:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

No. --Huey gunna getcha 16:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

You blocked me for being "disrputive." You deleted the conversation between Hoji and I, which creates a strong presumption that you read it. At what point does asking for clarification of any potential rule violation become an offense against Conservapedia? How is it damaging to this organization to ask for a clarification of the rules in play? Get over yourself. --Huey gunna getcha 21:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

do not unprotect theory of evolution article

See my last edit to the article. Conservative 17:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

New User

Hi Ed, and welcome to Conservapedia! Please have Samantha email with her request. I look forward to her contributions! ~ SharonS Talk! 21:18, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not in charge of the webmaster email address so I'm not sure if Samantha emailed it yet. The process to create a new account is usually pretty quick, so I would guess she hasn't. By the way, please feel free block vandals guilty of obscenity (such as IlikeBigBibles) for an expiry time of infinite. Thanks ~ SharonS Talk! 09:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Lock List

Be my guest, Ed. I'd do it but I know you could make it look nice and pretty. Myk 23:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Threatening Huey again

Ed, I don't understand where your hostility is coming from. I'm doing my best to be a valuable Conservapedian - and even you've said that I provide useful information to this site. I don't know what you mean by my creation of a rebellion - maybe you can point to an example of attempted mutiny so I can intelligently defend myself? --Huey gunna getcha 17:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you're not blocked now, are you? Let's see some more valuable and useful contributions. Perhaps I was hasty. I can be very un-Entish at times, and it's probably my worst habit. --Ed Poor 13:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Good luck to you as well

I hope you get enjoyment out of building this wiki into something worthwhile, if things change significantly in the way editors are treated and disputes resolved I may come back. But as things stand right now I just can't do it. Tmtoulouse 13:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I understand. I feel the same way about Wikipedia. If there's ever anything I can do to help, let me know. I was made a sysop just the other day, by unanimous vote of the students, and I'm a pretty easy-going guy. --Ed Poor 13:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


From what I read right now, all articles are semi-protected because unregistered users can't edit anyway. So unless semi-protection does more than your template gives away, you may just as well do full unlocks. --Sid 3050 15:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I guess I should have known that, but I'm thinking ahead to the next time they open the site to unregistered contributors. I also am fumbling around for a way to distinguish between fully-protected and semi-protected articles. --Ed Poor 15:11, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
They never did allow unregistered edits... at least not since I discovered the site. Sure, they might do it in the future, but right now, I think even registering is disabled. But it's good to see that somebody is planning ahead and tries to anticipate stuff, even if it's kinda unlikely from the current point of view. :) --Sid 3050 15:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, you're saying that there are effectively only two levels:
  1. sysop-only
  2. registered users
The protection button allows me to apply (1) no protection (2) registered users (3) sysops, but since #1 does not apply it's really on #2 and #3 that matter. I hadn't really thought about that.
My template is beginning to seem useless to me. It's sprouting legs and walking away. Oh, there it is, outside in the garden, eating worms. Poor template. --Ed Poor 15:20, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Your intention was certainly noble, but this wiki isn't as free as others (yet). :( Making a list of articles with a high potential for vandalism would be a smart idea, though. I think Wikipedia has a semi-protection level that also excludes newly-registered editors. That one might be a good idea for when we open the registration floodgates again! :) --Sid 3050 15:34, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Our friend, the Sun

Talkin' sun

Didn't realize I took away a link on the sun edit - I simply undid your revision because the edit summary went along the lines of "I don't know what G2V means." G2V is a classification used to define the luminocity of spectral bodies. The Sun has been given the exnominated classification, G2V, which means that its light is white when compared to all other bodies. You can find more information here: Hope this helps. --Huey gunna getcha 16:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, hang me for an ignurrint redneck, ah never know none of that. Can you put that there hifalutin' lingo in the Sun ar-tikkle fer me, Bubba? --Ed Poor 16:34, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


Of course. I saw you had come here yesterday, should have said hi myself. While not American I certainmly dont share the disdain for this project shown by so may of our wikipedia colleagues, SqueakBox 14:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't Central America in America? ;-) --Ed Poor 15:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Not offended

I found your remarks in no way offensive, and you should feel free to leave them, thanks. PalMD 15:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Very kind of you doctor. I appreciate your sympathetic understanding. --Ed Poor 15:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

slippery slope

Please create an entry for slippery slope. Thank you for your attention in this matter. --Huey gunna getcha 17:37, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

List of favorite editors

Thank you for including me on the list. It's an honor. MountainDew 20:01, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

You are a good example to me! :-) --Ed Poor 20:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


Nothing wrong with a little levity now and then, eh? ;)--ArmorOfGod1337 20:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

If God didn't invent laughter, somebody would have had to. :-) --Ed Poor 20:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks You!

Thanks for the editing compliment, Ed! --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Links in headings

In answer to your additions to the Civil War article, yes, links can go in headings, as you did for the subheading on slavery. All it does it make it easier for the reader to cross-reference as needed. Karajou 10:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

human anatomy

I'll certainly assist however I can on an article on human anatomy. I've never had an intricate knowledge of biology, but I'm more than happy to fill in some knowledge from time to time. --Huey gunna getcha 13:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


Block log:

Or if you can't see that because you're not a sysop, try this:

Are you seriously saying that for that tiny bit of very very minor name-calling youve banned huey? Its not like he called the guy a nazi raging homophobe or something (even if it is correct). Also, the remarks were made on talk pages. Talk pages are where opinions are voiced, unless you weren't already aware. I think a better explanation (other than: he does not fit with the t ideals we hold here) for his blocking is in order. MatteeNeutra 14:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I blocked "Huey gunna getcha (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (name-calling).
Sarcasm is still allowed, I guess, but bear in mind that it wears thin after a while. I'd go easy on that " t" stuff unless you mean "the forcible suppression of opposition". I personally welcome the expression of views opposite to mine. --Ed Poor 14:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I have been repeatedly called a "narrow-minded evolutionist" by the user Scorpion, who has thus far recieved no punishment for his actions. Surely huey calling somebody a baby as an example of how silly they are being is nowhere near as bad as that repeated abuse? MatteeNeutra 14:44, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Mattee, Huey's been repeatedly warned by Andy, including threatened with infinite banning. He's lucky not to be receiving an infinite ban now. MountainDew 14:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case, the ban log should have stated as such. I imagine that if we went through every talk page and banned everyone who had made a jibe against someone else for three days, we'd have a very unproductive three days here. MatteeNeutra 14:48, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
This place would be a whole lot better if people would edit more and fight less. I hope we can all agree on that. MountainDew 14:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Why has Huey been banned for name calling but Conservative has NOT been banned for blocking me without cause 3 times, and repeatedly protecting articles, and failing to consult with admins on important decisions?-AmesGyo! 16:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Agreed, Conservative's history consists of pretty much a full month of power abuse. (I also fixed the second block log link there) --Sid 3050 17:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


I think bans here are arbitrary and capricious to say the least. I think I might have deserved it (but RSchlafly deserves a ban & an education on how science works), but Conservative definitely deserves it, and I doubt Huey did. As much as I love you, Ed.-AmesGyo! 17:13, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with much of that, but remember I'm new here. As are we all in a way. We are visitors who have come to volunteer with this project. Visitors need to learn what the rules are - everywhere we go, there are rules. Science has rules, as you just pointed out.
Perhaps you can help write a Conservapedia:Science standard . . . --Ed Poor 17:17, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like a lovely idea, Ed! And I don't want to imply that my affection for you is in any way lessened. I think you're an awesome guy. But yes, I'd help you write that, but I don't know if it'd be followed. For one, I don't think Answers in Genesis counts as science (shocking!!).-AmesGyo! 17:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Ah, well that's why we have an encyclopedia. We need to write clearly and accurately about Answers In Genesis. I know very little about them, but their name sounds like a slogan: "All the answers are in Genesis". Are they Young Earth or maybe even Creation Science? --Ed Poor 17:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


Thank you for your patience in dealing with all the ruckus on here in the last day or so. MountainDew 14:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I used to teach Sunday School. When kids got out of line, I would order them to stand facing a wall for 5 minutes. My primary rules were:
  1. No hitting
  2. No grabbing
  3. No teasing
After about six Sundays of this, misbehavior dropped down to negligible levels, and attendance eventually doubled. The kids really like being in an environment where no one would hit them, grab their stuff, or tease them. --Ed Poor 15:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


Please explain what was 'useless' about the article so I can flesh it out and make it a bit more useful. Ilikepie 16:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

What should an encyclopedia say about transgenderism? Is it a desire to look different? A feeling that one is a 'really' a member of the opposite sex? Does it have anything to do with sex-change operations or gender identity?
Before veering off into issues of whether "transgender people have been mistreated", first say who or what a transgender person is. --Ed Poor 16:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
To be honest, I was wary of mentioning sexual reassignment surgery or such things, because an article describing those things was deleted as 'inappropriate'. I'll rework it towards some middle ground and cut the part at the end. Ilikepie 16:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, well to be honest I have no idea if [[]] is 'appropriate' for this project. But if you do it on request by a sysop, no one can blame you. Hmm. Maybe we should ask senior staff first. --Ed Poor 18:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Just so we know...

What is your threshold for putting bans on people for what say?--Dave3172 16:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Content: none. Make any criticism of writing or policy you want.
Tone: depends on the case, but repeated snide remarks, put-downs, insults, name-calling are out as far as I'm concerned.
  • Who died and left you in charge? (snide, unacceptable)
  • You are being too hard on people (to the point, perfectly acceptable)
Clear enough?

My response

Is here. In case you missed it. --Horace 18:25, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with your edit and reason on the nylon bacteria. Thanks for clearing it up. I hope it doesnt end up as an edit war. The talk page used to be active, and that would be the appropriate venue, i think.--PalMDtalk 18:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


You're asking me will my love grow
I don't know, I don't know
You stick around now it may show
I don't know, I don't know

SPAM Filter...

Look in yours, in case my email(s) are stuck there....;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:30, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Oh well. Have it your way, Ed. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Our evolving article on the Theory of evolution

I referred to someone's articles as idiotic. Do you think that deserves some sort of punishment? --Horace 02:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Why on earth did you do that? Did you think it would be helpful in building an encyclopedia? Dpbsmith 06:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
As a matter of fact, yes. --Horace 19:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Don't try to push the envelope, please... for everyone's sanity. Even if some of us do not like a certain sysop's actions. MountainDew 02:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

He wants to be a martyr, and cast himself on the cross...its sort of a mass hysteria, a fixation. --~ TerryK MyTalk 02:52, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Mass hysteria? How many of me do you think there are? --Horace 19:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm seeing a general trend of unrelenting criticism toward User:Conservative, and this disturbs me. While there's nothing wrong with providing a low evaluation of his work's quality, it's also not useful.
I would rather see specific criticisms, and better yet, specific suggestions for improvement.
I've heard dozens of times the complaint that he 'keeps evolution locked'. He was then persuaded to unprotect it for a lengthy period of time, but the 'work' we all did failed to improve it. Probably because we did not have a plan. "Let's get out of here" is an intention, not a plan.
We are prisoners in a way (think "Hotel California"). We want to "check out" of the intellectual difficulty of crafting an adequate Theory of evolution article. But we don't seem to be able to "leave". And Conservative is not going to open the floodgates until something better appears. He has, however, several times, opened the door. Has any of us expressed our gratitude for this? Not even me, I guess :-(
Pick an aspect of evolution, and write about it as a spin-off. How about Evidence for evolution? Or the related Jonathan Wells thing, about Evolution education in schools?
Would anyone like to write about Embryo drawings? If you google "embryo drawings" the first hit is Ernst Haeckel, the man anti-Evolutionists accuse of "faking" the drawings.
It's kind of silly to ask for carte blanche on what's arguably the single most important (or contentious) article in the project, when none of us (including me!) has done our homework. --Ed Poor 08:29, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure how closely you followed the events or if you already factored in the full rewrite and the large sections that got vaped instantly. The Theory of Evolution talk page (and the numerous archives) are full with specific criticism. Whenever anybody tried to steer this "article" towards balance, it was reverted and re-locked. Right now it's only unlocked because (1) our ominous council may actually some day make a decision and (2) nobody wants to jinx it. Oh wait, it's locked again. At least one entire section in the current article should be vaped, and I would vape have vaped it, but I don't feel like getting another article locked because of my evil, liberal, atheist, evolutionist behavior. Not to mention that I'd have to waste time with trying to alert some sysop via mail to unban me again.
Alternate articles have not had much success. There was an article about the Scientific Theory of Evolution, but it got deleted. Multiple times. I think it's now locked as a redirect with the "reasoning" that "Andy said he only wants one Evolution article".
The criticism of Conservative himself has been VERY specific over the past few weeks. Andy knows this. Heck, without even looking at his archived Talk pages, I think I remember two de-sysop requests and at least one lengthy debate over his specific actions at that time. Andy's answer was always along the lines of "Theory of Evolution is the xth most popular page. This means that he is doing something right." THAT is his entire excuse, and he actually used it on the CURRENT User Talk page again.
Assuming that you took a look at the full rewrite (that eventually led to one sysop leaving Conservapedia), please tell me how that "failed to improve" things. It's not that people are unorganized or anything, but our efforts constantly get nullified because Conservative wants only HIS view in that article. --Sid 3050 08:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks, Ed. Criticism is easy. Productive work isn't ever. ;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 08:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Reverting good edits that don't suit his point of view and then locking an article with his sysop powers is also easy. Thanks for totally dissing the productive work people invested into the article even though their efforts were proven to be futile. --Sid 3050 08:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid, your 350-word analysis above was making a lot of sense up until the last paragraph. Please don't be bitter. Have you ever worked on a large project before? Alternate tracks (or branches) aren't going to work. So we must do something else.

I unfortunately don't know very much about biology. I understand the Methodology of science very well, however. (Wikipedia's article on scientific method doesn't have the key point of drawing conclusions based on the hypothesis; testing those conclusions with experiments and/or observations; and junking the hypothesis if any derived conclusion doesn't fit the facts. Not as of last month, when I pointed this out again, anyway.)

There is a clash of viewpoints on evolution. Our article might lean too far toward one 'side' but that doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Why don't you work with me on a section of it? Take the smallest section - or the one with the most obvious and easiest-to-fix mistakes, and create a spin-off article. I can link to it with the {{main}} template. Then, when the new 'section' or 'spin-off' gains approval, we can either (1) summarize the aspect in the compendious Theory of evolution with a link to the 'main' treatment of aspect - or simply replace the section.

Is that a plan? --Ed Poor 09:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I think the last paragraph made a lot of sense (I had to do full rewrites of two articles just to remove all the stupid and to structure things), and I repeat the implied question: Have you taken a look at it, and if so, what are the shortcomings? And the alternate branch only came up because the article remained under Conservative's sole control for a few WEEKS. When it was finally opened, people tried to insert balancing sections (not the rewrite) to actually give people an idea what was being refuted. They also took out or modified sections that were flat out wrong or consciously misleading. All those efforts were reverted, and the article was locked again. What is the justification for that? Isn't that what you suggested? Improving the existing work? Isn't that what a wiki is all about? Refining an existing article? The rewrite was only inserted recently.
And after about a MONTH of being merrily ignored by an idiot and the idiot covering him, pretty much everybody is bitter. Andy is happy because ToE has a high pageview rate, and the article has a high pageview rate because it's so incredibly stupid. That cycle sets incentives for being stupid, not for improving an article.
I'm no expert on Evolution. Biology is one of my weak points. You should make this suggestion on the Evo Talk page, maybe you'll find a few people with the needed knowledge and the willingness to start an article that comes pre-equipped with a date of death.
But if you want an example of a section that really sticks out, read this section. It's my "favorite" section EVER, especially the part about the lions. My suggestion for improving it: Delete it. It has NOTHING to do with Evolution. This becomes obvious when you realize that an (almost) exact copy of that section is in Young Earth Creationism (which happens to be locked - oh, the surprise!). That's the section I would have deleted, but then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. --Sid 3050 09:36, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, Sid, like I keep repeating, this isn't Wikipedia! He reverted edits Andy and the Students don't agree with. You knew it was going to be like that when you signed up. Or you should have. How have I dissed anyone's work? --~ TerryK MyTalk 09:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I hope you are aware that you just said that Wikipedia is better than Conservapedia, right? And actually, no, I didn't know that when I signed up. Please point me to the rule that says that all edits have to comply with Andy's YEC view. --Sid 3050 09:36, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, Sid, I have not actually read Theory of evolution all the way through, even once. It's not written well enough to keep my attention. I tinkered with the intro a bit, and a phrase or two I added may have stuck.

So I would say that the first shortcoming is readability. I can't read the article! And I'm a high school graduate with some college.

Yes, I understand you're chafing under the bit of full article control, but have you ever worked in a newspaper or magazine? Do you know what's like to have a relationship with an editor? This is not a free-for-all here. It's not like Wikipedia.

Perhaps the concept of refutation is a problem here. Instead of saying, this article is WRONG - say "others believe this, and here's why". This strategy has actually worked well at Wikipedia, as long as no one person or group managed to get 'page ownership'. Which is what you're objecting to here, right? - I'm not deaf.

But "correcting" is not always the wisest tactic. Presenting "an alternative" usually is. Up until a certain point in my Wikipedia career, I boasted that I could get any idea into any article. But then enough people joined to make group page ownership possible. One or two people can't thwart 8 people working in concert - not at an open wiki. (The arbcom was no help, as my experiment proved.)

I did not suggest "correcting". I suggested rewriting a problematic section so that it presented alternative ideas.

For example, to take the first sentence. "The Theory of evolution is a materialist explanation of the history of life on earth." Maybe someone thinks, "It is not materialist, it's science!" But you can't just change the first sentence.

You can add, somewhere after that sentence, something about alternative ideas. Like, "E. Scott's organization says that evolution is not a materialist explanation but a scientific one." Or, "Evolution is not based on materialism, but science does of course confine itself to observable phenomena."

The point is not which alternate formulation you want, but HOW and WHERE to mention the alternative. Don't keep throwing your shoulder against the door: you can't break it down, and you might injure your shoulder. --Ed Poor 09:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

With respect Ed, it's already been done. Take a look at this. The idea was to leave Conservative to his own devices on the Theory of evolution page and develop a neutral description of evolution on the 'Scientific theory of evolution' page. This was a compromise worked on by several editors, including a few sysops. Result? Unilateral deletion of the alternative page. Tsumetai 10:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I wanted to point out that creating a second track will not work. Don't bite off more than you can chew.
  • Pick an aspect of evolution, and write about it as a spin-off.
  • Would anyone like to write about Embryo drawings?
As my pastor used to say, "By the yard, it's hard. By the inch, it's a sinch." So let's bite off one chunk we can sink our teeth into. --Ed Poor 10:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
The same happened with rewrites or corrections of single sections. You should really check the article history, starting from the end of Conservative's looooooong edit spree. --Sid 3050 10:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
You make interesting points, and you obviously have the experience to back them. My main issue can be summed up by quoting CPWebmaster: "There is no such thing as a "consensus document" on Conservapedia." So yeah, this really isn't a "free for all", to put it mildly. But Andy keeps saying that it is. He says that well-cited material should be included, but those things get reverted when they go against Conservative's view. Not just in ToE.
The "materialist" thing was actually mentioned in the Talk page, by the way.
Like I said, I don't have the required knowledge to rewrite any of the halfway critical sections. Putting a link to this discussion on the ToE Talk page might give a few results, though. Want me to do the linking so you get more than just my PoV on this? --Sid 3050 10:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Are they just laughing at us?

...yes. Yes, they are. Take a look at the news articles covering Conservapedia. Or the blogs.

Or, if you want the quick version: Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus is the 27th most popular page on Conservapedia with 14,000+ hits. It ranks higher than Bible, Ann Coulter, Intelligent design, or Young Earth Creationism. It was a prank entry that got linked on blogs and in the news. 14,000 hits for a prank entry that was removed on March 2.

Kangaroo was also mentioned in many blogs and news articles making fun of Conservapedia. It is currently the 6th most popular article with 50,000+ hits, making it more popular than George W. Bush or Jesus.

If you check Alexa's graphs for Conservapedia (yes, yes, I know - Alexa isn't accurate), you will notice a MASSIVE spike around the time Conservapedia got all the (not really posititive) coverage. That traffic peak ended almost as abruptly as it started once people moved on. --Sid 3050 09:49, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there anywhere where we can see the number of page views for each article say, over the past week or two, instead of just the totals? If not it could be worked out manually because I think it might be interesting to see which pages are actually still popular now. --JamesK 10:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not aware of any way to do that, but it would be interesting to see, yes. --Sid 3050 10:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Not sure what your point is, Sid. I'm more disturbed by the sabotage done by pranksters. They pose as Creationists and then write an article which is a parody of Creationist ideas, and then mock us for "having stupid articles". It's like the old newspaper trick of taking a politician's photo with two flash cameras: the first flash is to take him by surprise so he has a goofy look on his face. You print the second photo to "show" what a "goof" he is. There's also the "false endorsement" phone call, where your campaign calls voters pretending to work for your opponent and offend the voters (with points you make, or a rude tone).
I'm interested in an evolution article (or article series) that presents both Conservative and Liberal ideas about evolution. I guess I mean by that also, religious Creationist ideas, skeptical ideas (like "it might be true but you have not proved it yet"), and supportive ideas (from "science" and/or materialism or atheism). But it's a huge undertaking, and we've got to start in a cooperative manner or nothing will get done. --Ed Poor 10:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Many people have the problem that it's often not easy to realize what is a prank edit and what is serious. For example, Kangaroo is serious (it even got "improved" recently by Conservative). Same goes for the site in general. Quite a few people on this site and in blogs posed the question: "Is this a parody site?"
ToE, Homosexuality, Abortion, Kangaroo, etc... those are our serious articles, and they get mocked. Same applied to Faith. That one was even linked to from the Main Page with the words "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions.".
I'm not worried because of pranksters, I'm worried because the "approved" edits here look like pranks. --Sid 3050 10:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


Ed, I copied the template you were working on to "protect". It makes more sense in context with what the template notifies the user about. If you have any objections, please let me know. --<<-David R->> 10:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to remove all "protection" templates from the pages where I put them. They make better sense on the talk page. --Ed Poor 10:43, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Great job! We have about 4 dozen protected pages listed for handy reference. --Ed Poor 13:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

David Rees

Good call on the move - I took ou the link to his site because it contains grown-up language. Sevenstring 13:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Great minds think alike. [5] --Ed Poor 13:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Merge request

Tell me what you need, ill try to help.--PalMDtalk 13:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

One article, containing all the ideas that were in both. Preferably all in Supply-side economics. Don't forget to include the terms Reaganomics and Voodoo - they're cute! --Ed Poor 13:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Im not expert, but having been in college at the time and having read much of the relevant history, I think I can give it a start.--PalMDtalk 13:52, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

If there is an expert who can help me clean this up, great. I hope to avoid editorializing here, so I added no irrelevancies about the ideologic battles surrounding this. I hope others can also avoid stirring the waters here, and keep it to the talk page.--PalMDtalk 14:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I think it looks a little better...see what you think. It is very NPOV, which I hope is acceptable.--PalMDtalk 14:17, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I have yet to hear a single word of objection from senior staff towards the idea of allowing an article to be neutral. Criticism of Wikipedia's NPOV policy has focused on their erratic enforcement of it. The idea of presenting alternate views is not what CP is criticizing, but rather the smothering of them, right? --Ed Poor 14:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I hope, but if the little discussion Im having with Roger on Theory is any indication, NPOV as a concept is frowned upon. IMHO, of course.--PalMDtalk 14:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok I expanded a little, but it may need some clean up.--PalMDtalk 14:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I cleaned up typos in my essay, do whatever you wish, but maybe since it's mine we can protect it? Or perhaps that's contrary to the mission of a wiki.--PalMDtalk 16:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I will work on the merge for you Ed. I will work on it a little tonight, heading home from the office now:)--TimS 18:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I will add some more to MacroE at a later time to flesh it out, but they are merged--TimS 14:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
No rush. Good scientific work takes care and patience. --Ed Poor 18:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Re Bias, you have more wiki experience, ill rely on your guidance.--PalMDtalk 18:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, i sent you an email on another topic if you have a minute.PalMDtalk 19:04, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Reply sent.

Convergent evolution

Um, could we resurrect that content elsewhere? --PalMDtalk 20:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It should be in the article history. Go ahead and put it back, if you (as a man of science) think it made any sense. If in doubt, paste it onto the talk page. --Ed Poor 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


Are you signed into, or paying attention to, your Yahoo? I messaged you there, shows you online.... --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Terry, I don't have Yahoo instant messenger. My new machine (a family Christmas present) only has Trillian and XChat. Both are configured for IRC on freenode but neither is set up for Yahoo yet. I use Yahoo for email, which is probably why it's telling you I'm there. Please email me if you can't reach me on IRC.
Meanwhile, I'll work on getting Yahoo set up, but email is faster. Hint, hint. :-) --Ed Poor 21:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I have Trillian. If you are using it, it will show you as signed into Yahoo on others using Yahoo IM. It shows you online now. Trillian is merely a client, and one must enter their YAHOO/MSN/AIM info. If you did that, and start Trillian, it will auto sign you in to whatever accounts you placed there. I did respond to your emails. No answer, so hardly faster, lol. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


PALMD is waiting patiently for you on #conservapedia. Crackertalk 21:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


FromtheBehind was blocked for only two hours for initiating an ideologcal war. Huey_gunna_getcha was banned for three days referencing someone's tantrum. Does this really make sense to you? --Huey dun gotcha 22:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


User DogBreath finds it necessary to continuall upload disgusting pictures and use foul language. I wouldn't like to think of children being given the opportunity to see them.

Account blocked, simply on your say so. I don't want to see any more images like the 2 I deleted a moment ago. --Ed Poor 08:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
It's a difficult but excellent job you guys are doing. Those two images were re-uploaded(if there is such a word) under the names SillyLol.jpg and farts.jpg. I have removed the images from the articles. Saved matt 08:17, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. I'll delete them, and you should be a sysop (so you can delete stuff like this). I'll mention this at User talk:Aschlafly. --Ed Poor 08:18, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
only 4 hours? Jaques 08:28, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Block extended. [6] --Ed Poor 08:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Revert war over maintenance

(sigh) Requesting sysop assistance because TK is creating a double redirect:

I have attempted to fix this double redirect two times, and both got reverted by TK. I assume he sees my routine repair as an attack on his User Talk page, so I need sysop authority to get the permission to fix things. The page is now also protected in its broken state, so I definitely need a sysop now.

So: I officially request the opinion of sysops User:Aschlafly, User:TK, User:Conservative, User:CPAdmin1, User:CPWebmaster, User:Ed Poor, User:David_R, User:AustinM, User:Geo.plrd, and User:Tsumetai to get a poll of roughly 33% of all sysops for this undoubtedly critical change to a User page.

All replies should be left at User_talk:Sid_3050#Double_Redirect_Poll for easier evaluation of the results. --Sid 3050 09:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

If I intervene, will you drop the matter? --Ed Poor 09:58, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
What matter? This isn't about him abusing me for no reason. It's about him reverting a helpful change and protecting a page in a broken state. I could also bring up the copyright violation I pointed out in Morality, which he reverted and protected. TK wants me to take the long road for all changes, so I do it. I tried fixing the double redirect twice, now it's locked and broken.
On the topic of his abuse: I'm f'cking off by him. 'nuff said. I'll cool down eventually, but don't expect me to instantly forget long pages of me having to defend myself for some maintenance while being threatened with bans. --Sid 3050 10:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Update: Following your advice; taking a time-out of a few hours. --Sid 3050 10:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Latest spree

Quite the vadalism spree going on...--PalMDtalk 13:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Just one user, I think. --Ed Poor 13:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Asking people to leave

Please obey the rules or leave. [7]

Awfully stern of you to say this. --Ed Poor 14:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Others would have banned him on the spot no questions asked.
He was ignoring guidelines and introducing liberal bias.
BillyBoy 14:48, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Just show me where - or post a notice at Conservapedia:Abuse. --Ed Poor 14:49, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
He (Sevenstring) was ignoring the following:
4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia. (See Differences_with_Wikipedia)
He then removed Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and Nelson Mandela from the [[category:Terrorists]] (People who are or were terrorists)
BillyBoy 14:56, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not exactly sure what point 4 means. Neutral to facts does not seem to obtain here that much, as facts seem to be in dispute. I would agree that it is not useful to be "neutral" to all points of view, whatever that means. Refer to my example of the newscaster "Live at 6...Nazis...horrible monsters, but snappy dressers."--PalMDtalk 15:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Billy, I'm not sure what policy here is on using categories to make a statement. Ask Andy. --Ed Poor 15:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Requested move

Would it be possible to move [[Talk:Conservapedia:Sources]] into the proper namespace (eg. Conservapedia talk:Sources)? Thanks. --Interiot 14:56, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Done. [8]

--Ed Poor 15:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Also, if you're finished with your test category Category:Foobars about Practice Page, could it be deleted? --Interiot 15:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

15:32, 31 March 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Foobars about Practice Page" (content was just a test - thanks to user:Interiot for prodding me)


Ed, if I make an article User:Palmd001/Science Classroom can people leave questions there, like in the talk page?

The technical answer is yes. If it fits in with the mission of the project, why not do it? Whether it's a good idea or not, you can talk over with Andy. --Ed Poor 15:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Andy seems to like it, so Im launching it as an experimental project on that link. IF it creats too much controversy instead of education, im going to abandon it.--PalMDtalk 15:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
If you think we need to re include it, feel free to ressurect it, but im not sure how to give an answer that will be acceptable, given that it IS a logical fallacy. --PalMDtalk 16:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I cant seem to find anything on the web about this particular idea; I certainly never heard it before.--PalMDtalk 16:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

See Bumblebee, which I just wrote. --Ed Poor 16:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait, see this

Great minds think alike, I already saw it. We should give Huey a prize for motivating me to write this. --Ed Poor 16:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey, do you any physicists, or at least someone who could pass, to answer a question in my classroom?--PalMDtalk 17:28, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Blocking Ayns Daughter

You blocked a user for stating opinions as fact. Do you think that the user's edits contained a drastically reduced number of citations than what is considered appropriate in Conservapedia, so as to merit a blocking?--Huey dun gotcha 18:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Huey, you're lucky to be getting banned for only three days. Your other name is banned for five months and you're circumventing that. MountainDew 18:56, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Please take a look at Scientific data withholding article

I posted a first draft. Please take a look and invite anyone you respect to take a look and see if they can make it better. RonCram 19:57, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow. I had to do a double-take to make sure I wasn't still at Wikipedia. Good to have you here, buddy! --Ed Poor 20:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

About My Writing Articles

Ed, I'd love to write some articles. In fact, I'd contributed quite a bit to the McCarthy page. My edits were removed, the page was protected, and I was informed that any changes I wanted to make should be put on the talk page. Take a look at Rschlaflly's latest edit on that page, the one that is said to be "as per PF Troy" and you'll see why I'm just a wee bit skeptical about your invitation for me to write articles. What is the point if what I post is removed and then, when I do post to the Talk Page, edited so as to be unrecognizeable and conveying in fact the opposite of what I'd meant? --PF Fox 21:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


What is the purpose of a 1-second-block? It seems pretty trivial. Such a block might go unnoticed. --<<-David R->> 23:38, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Edit counter

Making the place feel a little more like home, I've got an edit counter working... Ed Poor (talk contribs count). --Interiot 04:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Timed sign out

Ed, firstly I don't know how instrumental you were in establishing this site, but for yourself (or whoever started it) please send my deepest appreciation. After I realized what Wikipedia was all about I had actually thought of starting something like this myself. I really look forward to helping Conservapedia grow!

I was working through a long edit/article augmentation on Virginia and when I went to save the article, I had "timed out". My edits were lost because I was no longer logged in! I hit back, but the page had expired. It was a little disheartening and I don't know that I can muster the drive to write everything again. At any rate, is this just something I have to learn to live with / deal with with Conservapedia? Everwill 08:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Hi, Everwill. I'm glad you've come here. Many refugges are finding their way across and finding a haven of sanity and goodwill here. I didn't create the site - that would be Andy Schlafly (user:Aschlafly).

I'm terribly sorry about the loss of your work. Some browsers do that - I've heard horror stories about Internet Explorer. I have found Opera and Firefox much better for wiki work. When I go "back" I want my screen to look exactly the way it was - no reloading, and don't lose my edits! Until you upgrade to a better browser, try this rule of thumb: if you type more than 5 or 10 minutes, take a moment to copy and paste into another program like NotePad (I use TextPad).
Anyway, God knows your heart and surely must appreciate your efforts. Welcome home, weary traveler! --Ed Poor 08:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)


Ed, I have to try to clean up that AIDS article. It's a real mess as it stands.--PalMDtalk 10:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Speaking of cleaning up: it might be time for an archive there Ed? I had to scroll for half an hour to get to the bottom of this thing. Crackertalk


I badly misworded the sentence which all of the refs supported. I thought it needed to read more like "Though most mainstream science agrees that homosexuality is not just a choice", etc, because as it stands, the article is a "Gays will perish in hell, and suffer on earth, for making a bad choice" propoganarticle. --Hojimachongtalk 19:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, a reasonable motivation. Let us return to this matter in the near future. I would prefer to work with a collaborator than try to do it myself. --Ed Poor 19:19, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

New Page

Hoping for interesting points here, as each time I bring it up, the question dies.

User:Palmd001/Falsifiability Challenge --PalMDtalk 22:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

If interested Ed, Id be happy to discuss issue on IRC.--PalMDtalk 23:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, gotta work tomorrow and need my beauty sleep. We'll talk soon. --Ed Poor 23:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

THanks, night ed --PalMDtalk 23:21, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

HELP pages

In the help section there is a page on how to use wiki markup. I think this is a bit weak: it says fine WHAT to do to get WHAT but doesn't caution what NOT to do to get unsatisfactory edits. To wit: I've seen several instances of a numbered list going:

  1. Point 1
  1. Point 2
  1. Point 3

We need to put on the help page to NOT put the extra return to avoid this. Since these pages are locked I am unable to do much more than whine about them. :-)-- Crackertalk 10:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

  1. You should be a sysop, you're already the #conservapedia channel op.
  2. If you post the exact text you want somewhere convenient, I will copy and paste it as suggested.
  3. Thanks for your inspired leadership, it's a pleasure to follow your direction. --Ed Poor 10:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I doesn't want sysop...thanks for the thought though.
  • Please for to find User talk:Rob Pommer/helpme. The main thing I wanted in is the "hash" NOTE. Feel free to reformat that any way you see fit. Crackertalk 16:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)