User talk:Ed Poor/5
- 1 Homophobia
- 2 Contributions about Scotland
- 3 Thank you Ed!
- 4 Thank you
- 5 Noah, Ham and other changes
- 6 I have a favor to ask of you…
- 7 RPG-7
- 8 Child molesting
- 9 Regarding warnings
- 10 An idea to build more internet traffic to conservapedia
- 11 "Stub" template
- 12 Removal
- 13 IPCC
- 14 Google traffic - part II
- 15 Here is something I put on the main page regarding getting more web traffic to Conservapedia
- 16 An awful lot of British/Scottish new pages lately?
- 17 Mockery
- 18 Black Pudding
- 19 RSchlafly, personal attacks, and refusal to apologize
- 20 Writing Plans
- 21 Proposed Block Policy
- 22 Look at the content
- 23 Rschlafly
- 24 Zugstein
- 25 Psychiatrists vs. psychologists
- 26 Drunk Driving
- 27 Unlock
- 28 Thanks, fella :)
- 29 User:John11:35
- 30 Transcription and translation
- 31 Types of Evolution
- 32 Insanity
- 33 Black Pudding
- 34 Quick Favor, Ed
- 35 Parting Shot
- 36 (Audio) Feedback
Hi, with regards the recent deletion of the homophobia page and your intent on re-writing the page, when can we (the editors) expect to see an article appear that we can contribute to? Cheers MatteeNeutra 14:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- The term "homophobia" is misleading. It is used by gay rights groups to pretend that all opposition to homosexuality is irrational and hateful. --Ed Poor 05:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Contributions about Scotland
Glad you like my contributions about Scotland. I must be honest though. All the trustworthy information about Scotland was provided by others more knowlegable than myself. All I did was set up a category structure. I must admit my grasp of science and politics is wanting. Perhaps I'd better leave such subject matter to our resident experts Conservative, Philip_J._Rayment and RobS. Auld Nick 07:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you Ed!
Your kind words made my morning! Flippin 09:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you, Ed. --PF Fox 10:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Noah, Ham and other changes
You may wish to reread Genesis. First, the citation given is wrong, the events of Noah getting drunk occurs in Genesis 9, not Genesis 24. Second, Shem and Japeth covered Noah with clothing and were not cursed. Ham saw Noah naked and did not clothe Noah and was then cursed along with his child. The second change I made with that edit which was regarding the claim about the universality of global floods. This claim is very common among creationists and is by no means unique to John Morris. I would also suggest that you may wish to be a bit less quick to give "sysop warnings" JoshuaZ 12:24, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
I have a favor to ask of you…
Could you vouch for me, esp. on TK's talk page? I'll abandon this sock as soon as my other sock, Hacker, is unblocked. --Hacked 19:54, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- How dare you ask such a favor? Sockpuppets are expressly and strictly forbidden--or do you pretend ignorance of that? In any case, ignorance of law, policy, or any other body of rules, is no defense and is never a defense.--TerryHTalk 21:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm going to restore the RPG-7 article; "RPG" in it's title stand for Ruchnoy Protivotankoviy Granatomet, which means "anti-tank grenade launcher", not "rocket propelled grenade". It's common misconception that RPG stands for rocket propelled grenade, or that the RPG-7 is a rocket propelled grenade launcher, but it isn't. --Hojimachongtalk 20:37, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks for finding that error. We have to help each other do this. :-)
In addition to what you provided, I am going to need:
- Average state and federal laws regarding punishment of child molesters, and what these people could face while in prison.
- Famous cases of child molesting
- Famous cases which resulted in murder (like Richard Allen Davis did to Polly Klass)
- Signs displayed by the child that he/she was molested
- Organizations world-wide which promote molesting
You can also place items within the article itself as needed. Karajou 22:03, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry, the topic is simply too upsetting for me to delve further into it. --Ed Poor 22:06, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- It's also upsetting to me, especially when an individual who tried to go after me thirty years ago was arrested last December; he pled guilty to five cases of child molesting, and is a prime suspect in the Oakland County (Michigan) child killings in which 4 young kids were molested and killed in 1976-77. I'm going to put this guy and links to his case in the article. Karajou 22:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't know if you saw my reply above regarding the first warning I presume that you either did not do so or found my explanation insufficient. If the explanation was insufficient, I would like to know why. Regarding the second warning I have four points. First, independent of the merit of the warning, in the future I suggest that you put all warnings on individuals talk pages. In this case, if I had not seen the history of Andrew's talk page I would have missed your warning. Second, you state that state "You are misinterpreting the rules here, much as you did at Wikipedia." I'm not sure what rule misinterpretation on Wikipedia you are referring to, but if you are talking about the RfAr, the ArbCom seemed to agree that I was interpreting things correctly so it is a bit hard to claim that I was misinterpreting. Third, I have trouble seeing how I am misinterpreting the rules here given that the article on the Biblical figure Onan was deleted as being not family friendly; if a Biblical figure shouldn't have an article due to that, I have a lot of trouble seeing how the word "faggot" would not run afoul of the same problem. Fourth, you write that I should consider your comment my "second sysop warning." I must say that I'm puzzled since I don't see disagreeing about a Conservapedia rule interpretation as a blockable offense at Conservapedia:Commandments which explicitly states "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia" JoshuaZ 22:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Well, since you've seen both warnings a third won't be necessary. Try to help our project, or be elsewhere. --Ed Poor 22:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Ed, thank you for not replying to any of my points. (Incidentally, I've been a part of this project since well before you were, and you should have no worries about me being productive). JoshuaZ 22:34, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
An idea to build more internet traffic to conservapedia
Wikipedia gives the top 1,000 articles for its website as can be seen here: http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/%7Eleon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=1000&month=04%2F2007&mode=view
I think we might be able to drive more http://www.google.com and other traffic to Conservapedia if we make the following articles at Conservapedia better based on the first 100 or so most popular articles at Wikipedia:
- The Holocaust
What do you think about starting a Conservapedia improvement drive for these articles? Clearly this are serious subjects that people are interested in based on Wikipedia statistics. Therefore, I believe from a strategic point of view in regards to creating internet traffic to Conservapedia it makes a lot of sense to start a improvement drive in regards to these Conservapedia articles. Conservative 22:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
The template was created here, is used in over 500 articles, , and I don't see where in the guidelines it says not to use it. If there is such a guidelines, I'd appreciate it being pointed out to me. It would also make sense to redirect it to the expand template. JoshuaZ 11:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- One of the guidelines is to do what you're told.  I wrote that guideline, and it was approved by Andy. So drop the pretense of "just wanting to follow the rules", and do some work.
- I have an assignment for you, if you want to help the project. We need a "compare and contrast" article between Theory of evolution and Young earth creationism. If you can do that, I have two other similar projects for you. --Ed Poor 17:07, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Why were a couple of paragraphs just removed from this article? DanH 17:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- Which article? --Ed Poor 17:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Fred Phelps. I meant to put it on the relevant talk page. Sorry. DanH 18:01, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- Oh, I don't like him. But if you want to restore the paragraphs, go ahead; you don't have to ask. :-) --Ed Poor 18:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I won't. I don't want to give him any more attention than he wants (he's local for me and he craves it.) I was just curious, that's all. DanH 18:09, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Um, its in the report if I recall. Why not just read the report yourself and see how where it discusses the makeup of the IPCC and the process by which the report was written? JoshuaZ 18:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- Consider the difference between (1) collaboration on a trustworthy encyclopedia article and (2) engaging in personal debate or polemics. In the latter, one is free to score points by putting one's opponent at a rhetorical disadvantage. In the former, all participants are concerned with the plight of the reader.
- I repeat: do you have any evidence that scientists signed off on the Summary for Policymakers? If you don't know, how about writing about something you do know, such as the differences between Theory of evolution and Young earth creationism? --Ed Poor 18:30, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- I have no idea what you mean by the first paragraph, but if you look at the various reports you'll see that the authors are respected scientists, such as Niel Adger, Roger Jones,Richard Somerville, Penny Whetton and others. And each report has around 40 authors. JoshuaZ 18:38, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- Well if you don't know what you're talking about, you better not edit the article. If you do know, you can put the answers directly in the article to same time. --Ed Poor 18:42, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- Ed, this is one of those occasions where I have to wonder if you are deliberately misinterpreting my statements. The paragraph where I have no idea what you are talking about is where you say "Consider the difference between (1) collaboration on a trustworthy encyclopedia article and (2) engaging in personal debate or polemics. In the latter, one is free to score points by putting one's opponent at a rhetorical disadvantage. In the former, all participants are concerned with the plight of the reader" Regarding the second paragraph is my reply. If you want, we can go through all the authors and document how almost every single one of the 40 some odd of each report is a respected scientist. I took above a roughly random handful. If you pick almost any random name from almost any of the reports you'll find the same thing. JoshuaZ 18:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Google traffic - part II
If we are going to get http://www.google.com to build our web traffic for us I think the article improvement drive we are engaging in is the answer and I think the article improvement drive should focus on wildly popular subjects. With that being said, I don't think it is enough for our specific World War I, World War II, Jesus, and Adolf Hitler articles to have quality. They must offer depth of information too. What do I mean by depth of information? What I mean is that they must have quality articles associated with them though the internal links, see also sections, and articles available though the Category tags.
I believe there are 5 ways to have lots of articles associated with the above topics (for example, World War I and WWII. The first is to have second, third, and fourth waves of article improvement using the main/front page (for example, have a article improvement drive for "Western front". The second is to have a article improvement page. The fourth is to make sure all the articles have category tags. The fifth is to send emails to groups that would be interested in building these articles.
Here is a email I sent the group whose webpage is http://www.worldwar1.com/ (World War I - Trenches on the Web):
Dear Mr. Hanlon,
I and some others are looking to build the most comprehensive WWI resource on the internet. The resource will be located at http://www.conservapedian.org If you could spread the news it would be appreciated as we are looking for volunteers.
What do you think of my idea? And if you like it, what steps are we going to take to achieve this goal?
Conservative 20:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Here is something I put on the main page regarding getting more web traffic to Conservapedia
Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive Conservative 21:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
An awful lot of British/Scottish new pages lately?
I mention this with some trepidation, but there seems to be a flood of articles on UK-related topics, from a number of different editors. They are so exactly on the hairy edge of plausibility that I can't be sure where or not I think they're being contributed in good faith.
They are not obviously jokes or parodies, they are factual... mostly... but they also give the impression of being very casually written off the top of the head.
Examples: Severn Bore, Garibaldi (not about the Italian statesman), Black Pudding, Bacon (described from British point of view), All Day Breakfast, Trumpton, Leeds United, Chiltern Hills, Weatherfield, Yorkshire Pudding, etc. etc. etc. In some cases, such as Melchester, which someone nominated for deletion, fictional towns are described as real, and reasonable-seeming links are provided such as http://www.melchester.gov.uk which turn out to be broken.
Even though a number of different users are contributing these articles I think I see a similarity in style.
I could be wrong, but I think someone is poking fun at Conservapedia's Americanism. (Even though the Conservapedia Commandments no longer make a point of insisting on U. S. spelling, and complaints about Wikipedian Anglophilia are now pretty well buried in a mass of other [of "bias"] Dpbsmith 22:03, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- They tend towards being funny, too. I was running around fixing Monty Python links when I came across. Fairly true, but tongue in cheek as well. I also came across what might have been a fictional town. I don't think this site wants to be funny (ntentionally), although an argument could be made for some humor - as long as it is encyclopedic and, well, true. Human 22:41, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- I deleted some new articles and some edits recently that were British-related (one was in Glasgow), and they fitted your description of tending to be funny but sounding realistic. Some were clearly wrong; others not so clearly. I'd support being suspicious of them (for the record, I'm not talking about Llanfair...., which is a real place and a light-hearted but genuine article). Philip J. Rayment 00:07, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- I'm not talking about Llanfair... either, which like Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. strikes me as "mostly harmless." The whole thing, of course, is that if its good subtle mockery you never can be sure. The standard (and appropriate) WIkipedian response to a low-quality articles in a narrow topic area is to improve them, and all of these articles are legitimate topics for which sources should be available. Well, not quite all of them, if you've been following Chanty wrassling. but I'm not sure I personally want to spend much effort researching pork pies or the Order of the Bath or Lily Allen. On the other hand, there's no point in deleting them, either... is a puzzlement... Dpbsmith 08:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- It is the immense good fortune of Conservapedia to have gained a group of educated, literate and well-motivated people from the UK, obviously they will write first about what they are most familiar with. If people write about things about which they know nothing, the results tend to be of distinctly poor quality -there are numerous examples of this throughout CP, I'm sure you don't need me to point them out to you.
- However, harassing and persecuting people simply because they write about things of which you have no knowledge, and deleting their hard-worked-upon factual content (some of which may perhaps seem strange and even unlikely - meaning there is all the more reason to record it) will drive away some of this project's best contributors.
- If there is a problem with the tone of the articles, it (in my opinion) would be best remedied by creating and publicising a Style Guide. Plenty of editors, including Aschlafly himself, would benefit from clear guidelines on this. The articles in question seem to be under continuous revision and should soon fall into compliance.
- These people are not your problem, your problem is a lack of equivalent contributions from within the constituency that Conservapedia was intended for. Are there any plans to address this imbalance, and attract greater US-based invovement? --Jeremiah4-22 08:37, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yeah, I know, but lack of good faith is a problem. I've been wondering about your username. It seems like a joke. It's certainly not the verse I would have chosen as a nom-de-plume. Can you explain why you thought it would be appropriate? Who are you suggesting are "senseless children?" Dpbsmith 08:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- It was my impression that this site was intended to educate them, "they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge." and to provide them with the knowledge they need to do good. Was I mistaken? --Jeremiah4-22 09:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
The hint here, which all of us can take, is not to be foolish. I will trust people who make wise and useful contributions, and distrust people who play the fool. Sorry if this feels sharp, but if you want to earn my trust you'll have to work a bit harder. :-) --Ed Poor 09:07, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- As Jesus said, Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. John 7:24 (KJV) --Jeremiah4-22 09:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Ed, what is mockery? your entry doesn't say. It's incredibly unencyclopædic, much like a recent revision you made to homophobia, and much like most of the conservative- and YEC-biased articles on the site. It's all very well having an openly-biased encyclopaedia but surely the articles should begin by defining and describing the concept in question? --Olly 06:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- If you feel a definition is needed, please add it. --Ed Poor 06:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Don't you feel a definition is needed? Point taken though. --Olly 06:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- If you are making a constructive criticism, you should follow up. --Ed Poor 06:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Why was this deleted? It was a factual and properly sourced article about a foodstuff that happens to be popular where I live. Unless you have any good reason why it should be removed, I'd suggest replacing it. Trashbat 07:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
RSchlafly, personal attacks, and refusal to apologize
RSchlafly has publicly and falsely accused me of academic dishonesty, saying that my addition to the article on Isaac Newton was a “very misleading” use of my source. I explained in great detail why his accusation against me was false, and told him I expected him to retract the personal attack against me. He responded and chose not to do so. I told him that I could not and would not continue any discussion with him until he apologized for the attack against me. In his response he denied there was ever an attack on me and then repeated the attack. I once again explained why exactly what he was saying was an attack and rather than apologize he has chosen to ignore the matter all together (though he has made other edits). ASchlafly has made it clear in the past that he will recuse himself in issues involving his brother, so I am taking this to you as you have repeatedly evidenced both an ability to be fair and even handed and a commitment to civility, including a distastes for personal attacks. I request that you adjudicate this manner as you would if any user attacked the character and integrity of any other user and then refused to apologize after being given ample opportunity to do so and after being asked to do so.--Reginod 09:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Our task is to uncover what is really true. Given the immense amount of false information already available, you can appreciate the difficulty of this task.
- I do hope that all of us will work together harmoniously. Please take a glance at my essay, Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. --Ed Poor 10:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- I’m not sure what the difficulty is. He twice accused me of adding a very misleading sentence to an article, after tacitly admitting to not having even read the source I gave for my addition to the article. That is a baseless personal attack. I want a public retraction of the attack on me or the punishment of the person who made this attack on me. I want nothing more than any other editor on this site has received (numerous other editors have had people leveling personal attacks against them banned or forced to apologize or both). I have given the editor in question far more opportunity to apologize or retract the attacks against me than many editors who have been banned received, and I have not resorted to attacking the character of the editor in question. I have tried to resolve this without involving others and only came to you as a last resort. Please, do something about this situation.--Reginod 10:51, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes. I’ve read it three times now. I think it makes good sense, and that my concern is about just the sort of personal remarks that the guideline cautions against. --Reginod 10:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- I don't consider RSchlafly's comments to be a personal attack at all, nor do I agree that he accused you of academic dishonesty. Philip J. Rayment 10:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I can appreciate that it feels personal, but can you grant the possibility that it was not meant that way? You are not your opinions.
I have been vilified all over the Internet for my critiques of Liberal POV on global warming, evolution and Intelligent Design. Yet I have managed to maintain cordial relations with several ideological opponents. I have a standing invitation from William Connolley to stop in for a beer at his favorite pub, next time I'm in London.
Try to disagree without being disagreeble. It's not an easy virture to cultivate. I have failed many times myself. But I keep trying.
When it gets too hot to handle, just take a few hours or days off. Come back to it later. :-) --Ed Poor 11:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- I intend a career in academia. A professor with tenure can be fired for (when the system is working as designed) two things: sleeping with his students and academic dishonesty. One sub-category of academic dishonesty is misleadingly using sources to support claims that they do not support. In saying that what I wrote did that, he has attacked the core of my character—it is not a passing insult, but a serious charge. That charge is made more egregious by the fact that he did not bother to read the source I gave for my claim—he baselessly attacked the core of my character. And when I asked him to retract the charge, or apologize for it, he repeated the attack verbatim. So, you can see why I take it so seriously.
- If the shoe were on the other foot, had I behaved toward him the way he has behaved toward me, I strongly suspect I would be temporarily blocked from the site. I’m not, I don’t think, asking for too much, just to have attacks against me treated the same as attacks against other users of this site.--Reginod 11:19, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
If you intend to have a career in academia, I would not worry about what Roger Schlafly says about your arguments. Indeed, I would not even mention that you contribute to Conservapedia since most academics regard it as the encyclopedia for the intellectually deficient (and many of the entries prove that). I’m not sure what Roger Schlafly said to you, but I have seen some of his comments. For the most part, they fall into the “my response is correct because I say so,” which would not fly in academia. So, don’t worry about it. In academia, you could press Rschlafly to explain his argument. Here, he is pretty much enabled by the powers that be to engage in non-argumentation. --1048247 14:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I couldn't find anything in the rules about having to submit a writing plan. Do all editors have to submit writing plans or only the ones you pick on? I thought my work adding categories was extremely usefull. Anything wrong with it? Auld Nick 10:32, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Which one(s)? Auld Nick 11:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- LOL, in your case, I suggest reading all of them. --Ed Poor 11:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- If you can't submit a plan, it makes it harder for senior staff to supervise your work. An alternative is to submit periodic reports. I do a little bit of both. Good luck focusing on the work. :-)--Ed Poor 11:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- I take it I'm junior staff. Where and when can I collect my paycheck?
- Auld Nick 11:21, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- LOL, I'll split mine with you. ;-)
What's this, now? Writing plans? Are we all supposed to do that? And for what possible purpose? --AKjeldsen 11:24, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- I dunno, I'm just making it up as I go along. Tell Mr. Schlafly to make me stop, if you don't like it. --Ed Poor 11:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Do you really want people to help here or are you just out to annoy them so they give up? Auld Nick 12:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
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
- You are talking about Andy's brother? You think Ed can ban him? Maybe vitamins would help you. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:05, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Ed - RSchallfy just reverted the Adultery page despite some recent excellent edits to his own absurd, backwards version, then locked it. If that isn't reason for banning this moron, I don't know what is. 50something.
- I don't think you can read, 50something. RSchalfly is an Administrator here, Ed cannot remove him. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't care who he knows. He is not exactly an "asset" to this site. Can the
cabal Panel address the issue? Surely Andrew can find something else for him to do besides damage his web site? Human 02:55, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
As real as anything in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich I guess. I'll check the spelling tonight. Czolgolz 12:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- If that is the book I think it is, maybe the info never got posted online. Dead-tree materials are valid, just harder to check. --Ed Poor 12:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Ed, this user was blocked for ten days for falsifying sources. I checked my copy of "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", and absolutely nothing Czolcolz mentioned as coming from that book was even in it. In short, he lied. Karajou 01:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Psychiatrists vs. psychologists
Ed, it's your definition of a psychiatrist that is inaccurate. A psychiatrist is a trained physician who sometimes uses methods from psychology in treatment. This is considerably different from a "psychologist with an MD degree". For instance, psychologists usually don't have the authority to prescribe medicine, while psychiatrists always do. --AKjeldsen 14:21, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks for setting me straight. Please make the necessary article changes. --Ed Poor 14:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Don't worry, that's why I'm here. --AKjeldsen 14:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Now, about optometrists and ophthalmologists... :-) Dpbsmith 14:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- LOL! --Ed Poor 14:51, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Haha, -ologists are doctors, -trists are technicians. The optometrist fixes your glasses, the ophthalmologist fixes your cataracts. Human 14:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks, you just earned yourself one get-out-of-jail-free card. :-) --Ed Poor 14:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- If you can do historians and archaeologists as well, you might even get a cookie. ;-) --AKjeldsen 15:01, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Malicious gossip? They had the actual arrest reports for both of them. The article on Ted Kennedy mentions his accident, and the one on Bill Clinton mentions his dope smoking. If this is truly a ballanced resource, should we not include everything (or delete everything?)? Czolgolz 14:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- I agree: all or nothing. But how do we decide? On Debate topics, or at User talk:Aschlafly or what? --Ed Poor 14:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I consider your blcok on me specious at best. However, now that I'm back, please unlock my talk page & user page.-AmesGyo! 16:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't know what you mean by it.-AmesGyo! 16:24, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, fella :)
--Robledo 20:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
John 11:35 is the famous short verse, "Jesus wept."
He is a heavy contributor of new articles on UK-related subjects, e.g. Melcombe Regis, John Prescott, Ulster Fry, which are typically casual, breezy, and unsourced. Individually none of these articles would be more than a shrug—just another not-particularly-good article on topics of personal interest, like many I've contributed myself. But the entire pattern, taken as a whole, together with his username, raises my eyebrows. I don't want to replay all the inclusionist/deletionist debates of Wikipedia. But I'm not sure why someone would pick that verse, or why someone would think a dictdef of "Ulster Fry" was high on the list of what Conservapedia needs.
It might be appropriate to run a checkuser to see whether he's a sockpuppet of any of our other contributors of such articles... Dpbsmith 08:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
P. S. I'd forgotten... this is the same user who contributed an article entitled "Livers" saying that "The livers are organs in the human body that filter liquid passing from the bladder and turn it into urine." This actually raises my eyebrows higher, because the confluence of three errors in the same sentence seems unusual, and because this is not a natural sort of mistake (as confusion between the kidneys and the bladder might be). My perception is that he decided that he'd gone too far on that one, and toned down the joking to an unprovably-subtle level for later contributions. When he sees this I'm sure he'll point out that I can't prove any of this, and can't even be sure it's not just my own unreasonable paranoia. Dpbsmith 09:15, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
DPB, you can't prove any of this - and frankly, I think it's your own unreasonable paranoia. John11:35 11:43, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Transcription and translation
Ed could you revert what you did to the page. There are three different types, divergent evolution is one of the types not all of them. Continue to read the article before anymore edits and you will have your answers, if not let me know before wiping the page and redirecting it.--TimS 12:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- I thought you were at lunch. I'm looking for proof that divergent evolution occurs. Got any? --Ed Poor 12:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, there are several examples and research papers on it. I said I would be linking them in on the talk page. The bigger issue though is the removal of the other two types. Divergent evolution is one type the other two are in the article as well, with examples and citations. Ed, I know you did not go over the page enough to make the determination of wiping it. Please revert it and read it through before deleting it.--TimS 12:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- I was on my way to lunch when I checked the change logs and saw what happened.--TimS 12:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I went through the whole article and deleted everything after the first unsourced, unproven claim. Are you stating a doctrine, or is this science? --Ed Poor 12:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Ed, this is science and not dogma. So you did not read the remainder of the article. The types of evolution are the three different types that are taught and accepted by the scientific community and are found on every standardized test used for the GRE in biology. If you would just revert it I will provide the research for the Divergent evolution as I did for the Convergent Evolution and Parallel Evolution in the article. I must say this really bothers me that you would do such a drastic change on a page without even discussing it with me about fleshing it out. --TimS 12:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Well, I believe that assertions should be supported by facts and evidence or should be withdrawn. How about you? --Ed Poor 12:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- I agree but when you reverted the page without discussion, when it was noted on the talk page that it is still incomplete with the examples, you ignored the statements. Not to mention you lacked addressing the remainder of the page.--TimS 12:50, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Here are the research papers
I would point out the last paper about asexual reproduction and the evidence of how two differing species came about from bdelloid rotifers through asexual reproduction.--TimS 14:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- I do not wish to revert the article without your permission but I believe I have just provided you with the information as to why the article is valid and should remain unchanged with the divergent evolution section. If you are not satisfied with this I can provide other research. The other two sections, Convergent Evolution and Parallel Evolution should also be listed either in the types of evolution page or their own separate pages. For what it is worth the page is about the description of the different types of evolution found in the biological sciences. The listings contained examples of what Biologists describe as different types of evolution. For it to be a statement of fact then I would have to say the article presented the description of what biologists agree are the different types, no assumption of fact however by asking for evidence/proof I feel obligated to add actual research publications to the remainder of the article to show the evidence, this would in fact make the article biased in the favor of evolution. If it remained as a description of the terminology then this would not be a problem. --TimS 14:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't think Ed should have deleted most of the article nor renamed it, although I do agree that it was the evolutionary POV presented as truth, which is one of the criticisms that I was going to make of it. (For example, the very first sentence—"Biological evolution over time can follow several different patterns"—is simply not true if evolution is not true, and is something that is disputed by other scientists, so should be presented as a (popular but not unanimous) POV.) Evolutionists love to claim that their dogma is science, so I reject your claim that the contrary is the case.
Notwithstanding that criticism, it appeared at a quick glance to be a good description of those different types of presumed evolution, just needing some qualification that they are theories, not observations (for the most part) and some counter points to show the problems with the theory.
If Ed has no objection, I will restore both the content and the article name.
Philip J. Rayment 23:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- I've seen no objection, so I'll move it all back. Sorry about any later edits that will be lost (but they'll still be in the history). Philip J. Rayment 10:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- Tim, my question was not about (1) whether the article was valid or (2) what Biologists describe but rather (3) what proof there is that divergent evolution occurs.
- If we cannot supply our readers with proof of scientifically established beliefs, then we are merely restating dogma. Perhaps you'd like to recast your article in the that form, if it concerns matters of unproven conjecture. In that case, make it as long as you like. --Ed Poor 07:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- Ed, what other articles are on this site that presents themselves as truth with no evidence, or lesser evidence than used in my article and supporting amendments? Perhaps we should look at the fundamental logic of your statement about dogma. The Jesus article, what evidence outside of the bible is there of Jesus? So what separates Jesus from Christian Dogma? Now, applying that same logic to the types of evolution, there are multiple sources for evolution information and research (not to mention the list from above) provided by the types of evolution article. I note your statement "of scientifically established beliefs" but when I present the research and you still deign that I presented proof it makes me call into question the matter of proof provided for the existence of the biblical Jesus, with that said perhaps you might wish to explain why you would require more for one article vs. another? (Keep in mind that the scientific articles that are cited with research tend to have more up to date evidence and evaluation)--TimS 09:36, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Philip for the critique. I have no problem with using the "Supposed or theorized" style on the article however I must point out that observations are observations. The types are neither new theories nor are they new science, new discoveries in science support them but do not change them. They are descriptions of further differentiation of the high level classifications of mechanisms used in defining speciation within the theory of evolution. I can make the adjustments and feel free to edit with opposing view points.--TimS 09:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- Speciation has been observed; creationists agree on that. But Convergent and Parallel evolution have not been observed occurring. We can see that creatures in different supposed evolutionary lineages have similarities that convergent and parallel evolution is designed to explain, but those explanations presume that goo-to-you evolution itself is true, and have not been observed actually happening. I have restored the article as I said I would, and I will give you a chance to alter it to a more neutral explanation before I touch it again. I can't say what others will do, though. Philip J. Rayment 11:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- If I understand you correctly, you are confirming my evaluation and are conceding that you have no proof for divergent evolution. You consider it just as much of a conjecture or "dogma" as Jesus, right?
- No, I do not concede. I provided the proof. I just made the statement based off your view point of the situation. Not that I agreed with it at all. Did you read any of the articles I provided?--TimS 10:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- So as a matter of editorial policy I'd like you to present your viewpoint as biological dogma or as a conjecture being offered by the researchers whose recent paper you cited. Of course, if you ever do come into possession of any information which proves the theory, we'd like to see that, but until then it's merely someone's view point. Fair enough? --Ed Poor 09:49, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- Ed, if you wish to go this route then perhaps there should be clarification on all of the Christian based articles to clarify what denominational dogma is presented. This is why it is ridiculous. There will always be opposition in the scientific community about topics, which is one of the many checks and balances in the discipline. That is why the majority opinion is necessarily the stance that science takes on topics. Now it is noteworthy to show that if the evidence and research show differing accounts then science has no opposition to changing their view of a topic and making necessary adjustments to remain as valid as possible. Knowing this fundamental part of how the scientific community works helps to clarify the stances and positions of what is presented. So if we were to apply this as dogma then all science based articles will have to carry the dogma label as well. Just to note, this is not my view point about the types of evolution, this was and is the description on the observations made by zoologists and botanists who study developmental biology. I am a molecular biologist, so my understanding is limited to the molecular mechanisms behind their statements.--TimS 10:22, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed, I guess the reason this has bothered me so much, as I believe you to be a reasonable person and try to be as objective as you can, is how you proceeded to edit the page. You performed an action that I would have seen appropriate for nonsysop user to handle a vandal’s implementation of an offensive article. (Redirect and cut the content from the article) Being that you are a sysop you had the ability to delete the article if it truly was offensive to the site. The action seemed to me to be one of passive suppression due to A. the nature of the content based on your world view, B. The removal of most of the information of the article, C. The replacement with information of an opposing view and D. That you did right after I commented that I was heading for lunch ~ to which you responded by acknowledging that I was suppose to be at lunch when I first commented about the edit. I really dislike saying this but Conservative did the same thing to the macroevolution article where I added the differentiation of the mechanisms associated with macroevolution. I have worked on many of the scientific articles and would like to believe that my contribution has been cooperative in the past, even though some is against my background as a molecular scientist, and productive to the understanding of the students using this site as a source of information. If you truly feel that this is the way to handle the topics you fundamentally disagree with then perhaps this should be addressed. (I personally find several of the articles offensive but I fundamentally feel that everyone has a right to their opinion and try to keep my hands away from editing those areas where I have neither experience nor expertise in, to do so would just be the spreading of Dogma and POV.)--TimS 10:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Actually, I believe the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. i.e. adding 1+1 and expecting 3. :-P Jrssr5 12:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, that's the full quote I was trying to remember. Email me for a reduction on your block. --Ed Poor 10:14, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
...which you deleted yesterday, has been re-created, by User:Revelation21:5, another user with a name following the pattern of an oddly chosen Bible verse with no spacing between the Book name and chapter number. In this case, the verse is "Then He who sat on the throne said, 'Behold, I make all things new.'" About half of his edits are on British/Scottish topics.
Meanwhile, a User:Erasmus, whose first contribution was today at 11:19, i.e. half an hour before you blocked John11:35, has begun editing and creating pages, mostly on British/Scottish topics. The ones I've looked at, like our other recent British/Scottish edits, are reasonably-OK-looking, short, unsourced, personal essays mostly on cultural topics like Pub, Shandy, Mushy peas, etc. I haven't noticed any inaccuracies in a couple of facts I've checked; for example, his note on the origin of Rudyard Kipling's name checks out.
I'm not, repeat not suggesting you do anything about this but I wanted to call it to your attention. I'm not going to bother mentioning any further examples of users-with-oddly-chosen-Bible-verse-names-with-no-spacing-between-book-and-chapter-contributing-informal-unsourced-content-on-British-and-Scottish-subjects... should any arise. Dpbsmith 13:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- That's a rather selective quotation of Revelation 21:5. According to my bible, it reads "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. which makes Revelation21:5's choice of user name a lot more understandable. Swordofdestiny 09:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Quick Favor, Ed
I was wondering if you could take a look at user: Liberalmedia. I know he was infinitely banned, but he also happens to be my brother-in-law and I thought I would ask you to consider unblocking him. He's a real good kid, a little contrary at times (who isn't at 17?) and a budding economist. Anyway, I think it really hurt his feelings that he was banned so quickly after making a number of very positive edits. If you look at his work with defining liberal and conservative you can see, he's interested in classical philosophy and politics. Anyway, while not a "true conservative" his input could still be valuable. He didn't ask me to do this, I just felt bad for the guy. I will talk to him about his editing and developing a better "wiki voice" before he could come back. Anyway, I know you to be a fair-minded person, so I will just say please and leave it at that. Thank you, Ed. Flippin 14:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Not so fast. He'd have to take back this crack before anything else:
- He doesn't care what the study says. He would rather make up what the study says to further his agenda on this site. 
- Seventeen years is not too early to learn how to express disagreement without being disagreeable. We have standards of civility here, possibly a little higher than at Wikipedia, but in any case more strictly enforced.
- As Prince Charles famously said, "Be polite. It gets you what you want." --Ed Poor 10:03, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- By that token you should accede to Flippin's politely put and well argued request. It would be a graceful act. Swordofdestiny 10:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
No, I'll talk to him first and see if I can get him to apologize. I know that study was giving everybody a bit of angst that day and he made a flippant remark. It was rude, I agree, so I'll see if I can get him to apologize. If it's any consolation, he does the same thing to me in fantasy football--the problem is, he's smart enough to always back up his bravado. ;) Anyway, thanks, Ed. I'll see if I can get in touch with him. Flippin 10:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- If he learns some manners, it will be good for him. --Ed Poor 10:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- Swordofdestiny (talk • contribs • count) using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. That's nice, I must say. I was trying to resolve a dispute. Swordofdestiny 10:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- Ed, I must say I think that could have been handled better :(. Nematocyte 10:18, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- He does possess manners, he has the same difficulty that my English 101 students had in that he doesn't always realize how he comes across to people in his writing. When I first met him and the rest of my future in-laws he said to me "So, you're the rebound?" A good family story, and a everybody laughed. That's all I'm saying here. I would venture that many people have said worse without an infinite ban. However, I just thought I would ask you because I know with your experience on Wikipedia you'll appreciate the fact that some people take longer than others to develop a proper appreciation of wikietiquete, however it is spelled. I'm not going to get into a thing with other users here, it doesn't really concern them. Flippin 10:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- See irony and sarcasm for comparison. --CatchWater 10:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- This user got banned for infinity based on this? I might be bit too touchy on this subject as i have lately seen some bans that have made me question the integrity of some sysops. Im sure you had more proof of him being and sockpuppet than this. Timppeli 10:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT) Ah, sorry... Actually read his name wrong, thoght he was an older user, but never the less ;) Timppeli 10:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- ...or even [post-post-post-irony]]. You know, there has got to be something wrong here. I have no idea why the original was banned without warning, and AFAIK, a sockpuppet of a banned user can be allowed back in. There was never any discussion, and never any warning to the original ban. I am reminded of the Stanford Experiment; where arbitrarily researchers divided up members of the public into jailers and prisoners, and the experiment had to be stopped within days because the jailers were degrading prisoners. I have spent a long time here watching people like IceWedge vandalise the place, and I though "What exactly is the point of that?" Now I know, it serves no purpose except in some small measure ir makes one feel as though one's got some dignity.
(unindent) The difference here is that no one is being locked up and no one on the staff is pretending to get hurt. Would you like to write an article about Stanley Milgram's experiment or about the jailer/prisoner thing you started to mention? --Ed Poor 11:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I am probably not going to contribute any more unless my original block is lifted, as getting in through proxies is tedious and I am not, like IceWedge into vandalism. I have contributed to a number of articles, some of which are what you might term 'on the edge' as they are tongue in cheek, as befits the subject; I ahve also written some good, serious articles and have put right a number of others. I have contributed to debates, and I have been blocked for pointing out deficiences in Schlafly's edits (although this was called sarcasm at the time). However, that is all in the past. I have now been blocked out twice, and this will probably make the third time.
If you continue on this Machievellian path, you will, like Hitler and Margaret Thatcher before you succeed in getting rid of all those who would make this wiki a viable piece of work. I have found it interesting arguing with the 'loonies' (YEC and the like), as these are people I don't meet on a day to day basis. I have found it exasperating to discuss things with the God Squad, but I found their arguments illuminating, but never convincing. I know of several articles written by others which are complete and utter rubbish, and I know of at least one author who around 25% of the time writes total tosh, and it has never been picked up. NB even if you were to unblock me I would not divulge this, as I think it is a measure of the place that if things like this are not picked up by other people (ordinary authors, not SySops) then the place will fall apart.
You are making the mistake that Napoleon and Hitler made before you. If this enterprise is to succeed, you need to take people with you, not ban, bar and banish them (or even worse). If you manage to get rid of all the troublemakers, the dissenters and speak with one voice, that will be wonderful for you, you will all have a quiet life, getting on with your writing, but no-one, absolutely no-one will take you seriously, because of all the things that you did to get there.
In the end, someone will do to you what you have done to others, and you will find yourself at the end of a ban becuse you did not toe the party line exactly. Margaret Thatcher paid the price for her years of bullying in office. Hitler died believing that he was winning the war.
Unless you change, unless you adapt, unless you become more, dare I say it Liberal and Inclusive, you will shrivel and die, because like the democracy that is so beloved of America, you need the consent of people to succeed. You cannot do that by excluding all those with an opinion you don't like, or with a sense of humour you can't comprehend. --WhatTracer 12:03, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- I stopped reading at "Hitler". Try being polite if you want to be included. --Ed Poor 12:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I hope you don't mind my edits to Feedback and Audio feedback. I just noticed that the latter was a dead end and that the former is a redirect, so I decided to be bold and do some edits. :) --Chokaza 16:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)