User talk:Ed Poor/10

/evolution - talk to me about Evolution here

My well-rounded but spiky alter-ego

The post doc was in 1969-1970. The MD even older than that. I imagine a lot has happened in scientific research since Crichton last donned a lab coat. But more importantly, It would be hard to improve your stub because you did not even define the term: the phrase "consensus science" gets one hit - a wiki, at that - in an online dictionary search. http://www.onelook.com/?w=%22Consensus+science%22&ls=b&sourceid=Mozilla-search

Essentially, the article as it stands now is some supporting quotes for an argument that is never revealed.Kind of a challenge to flesh that out. PaulH 16:01, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Google returns over 30,000 hits. [1] So what's you're point? --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your comments, I've gone through the cricket articles and tidied them up. Next I'd like to create some articles on other cricketers like Don Bradman, Gary Sobers, Ian Botham and Glenn McGrath. What's the convention when a person has a knighthood, is this included in the title of the article. --Moronicorbit 15:55, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Good question. We currently have no policy on that. We currently have 17 pages starting off with the title "Sir" (not counting two that are not of people), eight of which are redirects to non-sir pages. Personally I have no problem with including "Sir" in the page title, but one long standing editor objected very strongly to even using the "Sir" title in the opening paragraph of Isaac Newton. I suggest using "Sir" in the page title, and they can always be moved to a non-"sir" title later if policy is set otherwise. What's your thoughts, Ed? Philip J. Rayment 17:57, 1 December 2007 (EST)

I don't think it matters one way or another, as long as we are consistent. We might borrow one of Wikipedia's guidelines: the principle of least astonishment. Let's not surprise the reader with an unexpected convention.

I'd be surprised to see an article entitled Sir Paul McCartney, even though I heard he had been "knighted". But Newton's from way back in the old days, when a title meant something. Sir Isaac Newton made a momentous contribution to science and thus to humanity as a whole. Paul McCartney's my favorite Beatle, and the Beatles are absolutely my favorite musical group ever! But entertainment just doesn't strike me as being of equal worth.

So I'd lean toward omitting "Sir" from cricket players, but if any of them have been knighted we could mention the fact somewhere in the article, especially if it was for something important.

But this raises a larger question. Are we going to do a series on European royalty at all? --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:14, 2 December 2007 (EST)

I don't see how it raises the question of European royalty; receiving a knighthood does not make one royalty, so that's a separate topic altogether. We have articles already on some European royals, and there's no reason we shouldn't have more.

Your suggestion of "the principle of least astonishment" sounds reasonable, although it doesn't make clear which way to go in specific cases, but surely adopting this principle would mean meant that we are not being consistent?

Philip J. Rayment 20:21, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, I didn't realize that knights are not royalty. *blush*

--Ed Poor ^Talk 20:24, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Hey Ed - how come you reverted the substing of {{8c}}? I would think that a template that's that simplistic (as far as the little amount of text it has) should be substed in order to prevent excessive work for the server ...--IDuan 20:47, 2 December 2007 (EST)

If you can make it work, go ahead. I'll wait an hour ... ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:49, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Haha - wow? Is that a glitch or something? Well, in that case I'm just going to essentially copy and paste the text, if you don't mind--IDuan 20:53, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Ohh wow, now I get it - if a template is in a ref tag it can't subst itself. I'm going to do some research tonight and see if that happens on other wikis - and if it doesn't, I'll try and figure out why it happens here --IDuan 20:58, 2 December 2007 (EST)

I was gonna tell you, but I figured it would be better to let you find out the hard way. It is one of MediaWiki's few disappointments. Now that I know PHP, I suppose I could write a workaround, but who's got the time? --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:00, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Girls can't be atheists too? Claude 21:57, 2 December 2007 (EST)

No, that's not allowed. ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:23, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Hello Ed,

I expanded the kilt article earlier today, but it could really use a photo. Here is one of mine:

http://highlandgames.wikia.com/wiki/Image:07Tac_503.jpg

Since I do not have image upload status, could you upload it for me and attach it to the kilt article? Give it the filename "Kilt_07Tac_503.jpg" please.

JFPerry 17:26, 7 December 2007 (EST)

To answer your question, this statement should have been attributed. "The commonly accepted model among transsexuals, and health care providers." This is most definitely strong support for such a statement provided by the overall trans community response to "The Man Who Would Be Queen". --Puellanivis 18:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

...this happen? The bit at the bottom, I'll confess to enough self-interest that I'm not worried about the rest of it. Aziraphale 18:49, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Was that an edit conflict that I handled badly? --Ed Poor ^Talk 23:58, 7 December 2007 (EST)

I dunno. I figured there was a chance it was interpreted as trolling and thought I'd come to you "privately" rather than air it out on the Main Page Talk. It seemed like you were cleaning out some other person's comment that you found inappropriate, but mine (and Andy's generally affirmative response) was gone as well, and was far enough removed (physically) from the other comment that an accident seemed unlikely.

Not accusing you of anything, exactly, just curious if it was a conscious decision and, if so, whyfor dost thou act? (Or something... :)) Aziraphale 01:00, 8 December 2007 (EST)

I must have goofed up somehow. Usually when I deleted comments it's on purpose. Stealth is for cheaters. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:22, 8 December 2007 (EST)

<snicker> Fair enough. Aziraphale 16:29, 8 December 2007 (EST)

There's a Category:Food and drink and a Category:Food and Drink one of these needs a Category redirect. Any thoughts on which should be redirected, I believe the style manual points towards the uncapitalised drink. --Moronicorbit 14:53, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Better ask Andy if he can find anyone who knows how to do a Category redirect. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:28, 10 December 2007 (EST)

The decision made at one time in regard to categories was to go with the capitalized version. The style of manual makes no reference to how this should be handled. As there are many more categories with the capitalized version, it may be wise to continue with the form that was being pursued. Learn together 15:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I actually prefer capitalization of categories, and non-capitalization of articles. It's just a style preference. Or maybe I hung around at Wikipedia too long before coming here. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:45, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I would ask Philip J. Rayment, as he seems to be overseeing this stuff nowadays. BrianCo 16:10, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I've started a discussion on this at Manual of Style#Capitalisation of categories. — Philip J. Rayment 06:07, 11 December 2007 (EST)

This seems a fairly straightforward issue to me. I have seen no definition of genocide outside of this site's article that requires that genocide be carried out by a government. The UN has not defined genocide this way, and the State Department states explicitly that genocide occurred in Bosnia. [2] Based on these facts, I think the definition in the article should be corrected, and the Srebrenica massacre should be reinserted as an example of genocide. What are your thoughts? SSchultz 21:45, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I see "genocide" and mass murder as synonyms. Only nit-picking legal theorists would say that killing one million innocent people wasn't "genocide" on some technicality. As if it's not evil unless it violates "international law". Do as you like on the example you brought up. We're all friends here. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:31, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Greetings Edward, from Edward. I finally managed to register, quite simple really. I look forward to having a chat some time. Greetings to anyone else dropping by. And, of course, peace and goodwill. WilliamofOcham 13:31, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Actually (and here he is asking favours again) if there is any way to upload this image from my website

http://www.gigafiles.co.uk/files/317/latin/gerson.jpg

It is from a very old book (16th century) and should be out of copyright. V. grateful. WilliamofOcham 13:35, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Hi - left a message on your evolution sub-page. WilliamofOcham 11:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Mr. Ed (hee hee),

Could you please unblock Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane for me? I'm not really sure why it was ever locked, and I need to change the categories. Thanks HelpJazz 21:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Hrm while you're at it, if you could delete Category:Chemical properties and Category:Chemical Nomenclature that would be greatly appreciated :) HelpJazz 22:42, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Hello Ed,

I know that you edit on both Wikipedia and Conservapedia and I just noticed that an editor and admin over at Wikipedia is insulting you on his Wikipedia webpage. I thought that trashing other editors was suppose to be forbidden.

I don't know if you've seen it yet, here is the link. Frankly, I don't think he should be allowed to get away with it. I'd be happy to support you if you chose to complain about it. Dwain 18:44, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks but as the author of Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks I generally prefer to ignore such things. Cheers! :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:47, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I ran into a problem while sorting the Philosophy articles into categories. There is a sub-cat of the Philosophy category by name Logical fallacy as well as one by name Logic. The Logic sub-cat in turn has a sub-cat by name Logical fallacies. I believe the plural usage is preferred, so I was trying to shift the articles from Logical fallacy to Logical fallacies and then request deletion of Logical fallacy.

The problem I ran into is that many of the artilces in Logical fallacy category have a Template:Fallacy which includes a categorization tag putting it in the Logical fallacy category and I cannot edit the Template to remove that. The result is that when I shift the article to Logical fallacies, it stays in Logical fallacy. I suppose I could just remove the Template, but I didn't want to do that.

In some cases, the article is also in the Philosophy category so that it is in a category and one of that categores sub-cats. In that case, I remove it from the Philosophy category.

Hope this isn't too confusing. The categorization of the Philosophy articles does need to be straigtened out a bit.

If you could just take the category assignment out of the template, that would solve the problem. I don't know why a template has an automatic category assignemnt in it in the first place.

JFPerry 23:12, 21 December 2007 (EST)

For a start, I deleted Template:Fallacy. --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:29, 22 December 2007 (EST)

"I don't know why a template has an automatic category assignemnt in it in the first place.": It is often (not always) appropriate to include a category in a template. For one thing, it saves putting both a template and a category on a page. For another, in cases like this, it is easy to move a whole bunch of pages from one category to another simply by changing it once, in the template. Philip J. Rayment 17:23, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Hi, I have 3 questions if you please: Could a deleted article be recovered?, could an "Image" be used to link to a CP article? and, at the tall page, what means the red color and the green bars? Thank you for your time. Have a HAPPY NEW YEAR! - --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

1. Any admin can recover a deleted page. Tell me which pages you are interested in.
2. I think you can use images for links, but it's a bit unusual to do so. Where and why do you want to do this? --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Thank you for your kindly reply.

I just want to know if it is possible. In html you can make an image to send you to an URL. For example:

|HAPPY NEW YEAR| (click) you go to New Year's Day.

How an article is recovered?

And about the red and green bars? [3]

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:41, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Philip J. Rayment 08:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I see that you also renamed some templates. The template list therefor needs updating.

Philip J. Rayment 09:15, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Ed, the author wrote all those entries (e.g., Les Paul) on the other site. So he's just copying his own work, which is OK.--Aschlafly 15:16, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, sorry! I'll undelete 'em. *blush* --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:17, 30 December 2007 (EST)

If he had taken my advice (on his talk page) to put a notice on the talk page of each article, this problem wouldn't have arisen. (You would have checked the talk page, wouldn't you Ed?) Anyway, this incident has prompted him to do that now, I see. But given that he's now putting notices on the talk pages, is there really any need for him to put a similar notice on his own website? Philip J. Rayment 05:16, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Not sure whether how closely you're monitoring the Recent Changes right now, so I'll just drop it off here, where you get a nifty note from the MW software :P

I noticed that there are now Not a democracy and A republic, not a democracy, which seem to cover roughly the same ground. Maybe consider merging the two to avoid that you use your precious time on accidentally reinventing the wheel (Although it's a very good wheel, I'll freely admit that much!)? :) --JakeC 12:48, 31 December 2007 (EST)

What exactly is conservapedias policy on reverting? I am new here so I don't really know much. Also I tried to activate my email thing and I am not getting a confirmation sent to my email.--Walker 14:14, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Same as Wikipedia: don't revert an entire series of edits, when you can keep the 'good' parts. And use the talk page instead of edit warring. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)

I would like to recommend that the article Heavy metal music gets locked. Walker is a devote follower of heavy metal and is desperately trying to censor out any mention of Satan in the article. If he is allowed to do this, then we might as well just redirect the page to wikipedia's article on heavy metal. We can't censor out facts just because people like Walker might find it offensive. -- Jose83

Jose83: likewise the article should not be written entirely from your POV just because you find Heavy Metal offensive. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 20:31, 31 December 2007 (EST)

I just unlocked dozens of articles. I'm not in the mood to lock this one. If he wants a revert war, he can go back to Wikipedia where he "gets" 3 reverts every 24 hours. Here, he gets increasingly lengthy blocks on his account. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:33, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Fair point - will do. Bradlaugh 18:04, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Hi,

Could you please expound upon your rationale for the suggested merge of FLAC and Ogg Vorbis into codec? I'm not trying to be excessively assertive, so please don't misinterpret my query as such.

Thanks, AngryCommunist 19:04, 1 January 2008 (EST)

They are both codecs. I'd like to have a list of them all in one place. Maybe you can help me with video codecs too. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:08, 1 January 2008 (EST)

That's cool. I'm going to re-merge MP3, if that's okay, as what I dropped was a plug for Windows Media Player, with some technical instructions that were not well documented and extraneous. --AngryCommunist 19:21, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Ed, I can't understand why you removed a lot of information from Evangelical Christians. Surely its just as encyclopedic as this well sourced educational, clean, and concise entry? ArthurDent 19:23, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Disruption to make a point. One-week block is mild - others would simply ban. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:25, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Since I'm not able to upload pictures myself, I was wondering if you'd be able to upload this picture for me [[4]]. If you aren't able to, that's cool too. Thanks. -- Jose83

Hi Ed Poor,

RE: My Intelligent Design page. I have been working with Conservative to get this page posted, but I do not have admin rights yet. Conservative was going to put my ID page up next week, as I am still making a few changes. I would like to continue to add/change after it is "live" but I need admin (Sysop?) rights, which I don't have.

I'm new to Wiki style editing, so it takes me a little longer to get things done.

Freedom777 22:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)Freedom777

If Conservative has no objection, I will replace our current page with your page - and leave the (new) page unprotected. How does that sound? --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Ed, I had started to do some clarity/structure work on Global Warming when I realized that it really spans a bunch of pages (in addition to the main article, we have articles on Anthropogenic global warming, Global Warming Controversy, Anthropogenic global warming theory, Politics of global warming, Global warming denial). What do you think about me rewriting all of the articles so they are consistent and easy to read? I don't want to change any content, just move it around for the most part. I could do it all on a subspace of my userpage.

Let me know what you think. Thanks, HelpJazz 19:17, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Please rewrite them all, but don't use your supspace. Any articles that are protected, I can unprotect for you. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:53, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Alright, thanks. For my sanity's sake I will do some organizing in my subspace, to keep track of what I'm moving where, but I'll do all the editing on the articles. Er, looks like I'll have to start tomorrow, because editing's getting cut off soon... HelpJazz 23:55, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Please don't take my suggestions as orders. Maybe your first idea was better! :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 23:59, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I just like to play it safe. I'm used to dealing with people who want me to take off-hand remarks as orders! HelpJazz 13:35, 5 January 2008 (EST)

It might be good if you didn't always do that ... and that's an order! ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:36, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Yes Sir!! HelpJazz 14:02, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Probably best sticking to what you know and avoiding glossaries such as these. Out of context, a few are pretty offensive. Also, you wouldn't want articles with these words in their English form. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 13:48, 5 January 2008 (EST)

I'm concerned - do you have a drink problem? Your editing is very erratic. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 14:11, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Offensive words removed. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:13, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Ed, I was never mad at you about the contest, and I would be glad to discuss collaborating on an improved article. I think we all need to commit to more collaboration and less single-minded protectionism. Thank you for inviting me to contribute. SSchultz 13:53, 5 January 2008 (EST)

I didn't do the recent reversion, but I fully agree with it. Jimmy added a cite to a school curriculum claiming it implicitly supports morality. But it doesn't even mention morality! [5] --Aschlafly 23:22, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Schools do teach certain values. Whether these are "moral values", I'm not sure, but William Bennett lists some values like honesty and compassion in his Book of Virtues which some public schools have taught. Like, don't tell lies about the other schoolchildren to get them in trouble, or "How would you like that to be done to you?"

What is no longer taught widely, of course, is sexual morality. Ideas like "It is morally good to save yourself for marriage" are condemned as "promoting religion". Can teachers say, "Do not dress like that slutty heathen Britney Spears?"

I wonder how long it will be before someone starts suing schools for requiring girls to wear panties. --Ed Poor ^Talk 23:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Ed, you've gotta be in the Conservapedia:Contest4! Please add your name to the list ASAP!--Aschlafly 09:12, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I notice that you moved Wigan Athletic F.C. to Wigan Athletic Football Club. All of the English Premiership football clubs that actually have an article (except for Reading and Wigan) are named used F.C. I'm not saying your edit is wrong; I don't know whether there's an official format for names of football clubs. I am saying that to be consistent a lot more pages would need to be moved.

This comment is not connected to your view that some of my articles should be merged into others; it is simply to query how articles about football clubs should be named.Barclay 15:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

What format do you prefer?

1. XYZ F.C.
2. XYZ Football Club

If your prefer "Football Club" written out - in place of the "F.C" abbreviation - I'll be happy to help move them all. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:24, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I just noticed that Ed moved Reading FC to Reading Football Club too, so the laticks aren't the only ones. I think its a case of cultural differences, Barclay, rather than any Anglophobe plan on Ed's part. As for Ed's lack of understanding about the importance of many non-USA articles, again, this is not, I'm sure, meant to be taken as a cultural slight or some other malevolent "master plan" :) See [6] for example. As you'll know if you've holidayed there, the US is a VAST country, and the very nature of the gulf between our sizes makes it extremely difficult for us to understand their way of seeing geography, and vice versa. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 15:29, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I prefer "Football Club" because it is more explanatory. It would be very helpful if you'd move the other articles. Thanks.

I don't believe there is any malice in the disagreement. I've never travelled beyond Western Europe by the way!

Barclay 15:38, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I just picked you, Ed. Let's win this time!--Aschlafly 18:28, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Okay, captain. --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Hey, so the draft will not actually finish until Sunday, but the contest will still start tonight at 12a.m., so all that means is some of you will be getting points without knowing what team you're on. Remember to keep track of your points well, at a page like User:Ed Poor/Contest4.--IDuan 21:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Hi Ed. Sorry you didn't like the article - its a bit tricky describing a province when its two main cities have been taken away from it, leaving great holes in the middle. As for Northern/Eastern China, I've worked in China and taught Chinese history and would say that the Beijing area is generally described as north China, and I've never heard it spoken of as east China, that being the region facing the East China Sea. The northernmost bit of China (looking at a map) is known as north-east China (in the west sometimes called Manchuria). So the description was an attempt to be accurate, not to deceive. Bradlaugh 11:08, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Hey just to let you know, the edit I made to template points doesn't really do anything - it just makes it so people won't think that something is wrong with the template if they look at the template page.--IDuan 16:32, 13 January 2008 (EST)

[7] - I note you used a source straight from my newly-created article on the Oxford Union. Good to see someone notices my work. :-) Walton One 18:49, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you, Ed. What you say is very true; I completely agree. Sorry it took so long to get back to you - haven't check my messages in a while. --David R^talk 21:33, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Had no idea how to rename, rather than recreate. Thanks for making the adjustment! --Jdellaro 15:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, at Conservapedia only sysops can "move" an article. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:31, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Hi Ed. Could you please take a look at my comments on the talk page of that article? I provide many other sources for the term and show that it isn't original research to connect it to the cases mentioned. SkipJohnson 16:19, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Also please if possible take a look at the new version of the article I have made. Thanks! SkipJohnson 16:26, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I provided additional sourcing so that the claimed reasons why we shouldn't have an article weren't an issue. I didn't remove it from Pipes because it might make sense to have a mention there as well. We now have many sources using the term and each case included is sourced as being a possible example to a third party source, either Pipes or someone else. I'd appreciate you letting me know what you think of the modified version. Thanks. SkipJohnson 16:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Hey Ed - are your contest4 points up to date? It seems like you might have undercut yourself a bit, but that could just be my imagination--IDuan 12:13, 20 January 2008 (EST)

I probably have a dozen or so edits to tally up. I was busy on the weekend. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:31, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Do not revert other administrators blocks. I do not presume to interfere with your actions, have some respect and do the same. If Andy wishes to revert the block, then that will be his prerogative. As for personality conflit, this is a recorded and ongoing campaign of intimidation. How dare you presume to dismiss the distress caused to me, other users (eg BrianCo) and my family as such a trifle. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 10:38, 21 January 2008 (EST) Furthermore, "consensus" has never been called for before in blocking ations, and in case you hadn't noticed TK is not a sysop and has no special privileges here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fox (talk)

I see from this [[8]] that you accept that Wigan can stand as an article. Is the discussion now over regarding the three articles above? Are you willing to remove the merge tags from them please? I accept your subcategories regarding towns and cities are reasonable to avoid forming one very large category. Thanks. Barclay 18:22, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Please rewatch the video, the sequence is:

• Eating chicken leads to global warming
• Global warming leads to ecological refugees
• Refugees become terrorists
• Terrorists start wars
• Wars create an energy crisis
• Energy crisis prevents grain being shipped, which causes poultry shortages.

So the real cycle is that poultry shortages are caused by eating chicken, however the intermediate steps are that global warming and terrorism is caused by eating chicken, global warming is described as a consequence rather than the initiator. TheGuy 19:53, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Lol, and pizza shortages are caused by eating pizza. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:06, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Hey Ed Poor, as you were a participant in the last contest I'm just giving you the heads up that the draft of the point system for contest 5 has been written, and we're using the talk page as a forum for any notes/complaints that any users may have. Thanks, --IDuan 20:21, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Due to a combination of wikipedia statistics and microsoft excel I can answer this query. It appears to be a myth that "Over half the activity at Wikipedia is done by less than 1,000 users".

From the statistics page on wikipedia (which I am not permitted to link to by the commandments) I copied the data for the top 2,500 editors of wikipedia, and using excel I summed the total number of edits by these users (48,250,772 if anyone feels like veryifying) and from this it is simple to calculate the percentage of the total edits (198,579,922) that this represents. The result is 24.3% which is significantly less than half for significantly more than 1000 users. Incidently, for the top 1000 users, this figure is 15.4% --ChazzaP 19:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)

You can't cite Wikipedia as a source, except when talking about Wikipedia (for which it is obviously the best source). There's no problem with linking to it in this case, particularly on a talk page. Philip J. Rayment 20:45, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Another source in "Truth In Numbers". The makers of this documentary about Wikipedia say that around 600 users account for over half the activity at Wikipedia.

The point is that it's not a broad base of tens of thousands of people but a rather insular community. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:14, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Nice story (Kerry v Edwards) on the main page Ed! Although I must admit, when I first read the headline I thought you meant John Edwards - thank goodness I decided to read the rest of the text (where I would find out it was Roger Edwards) and not pass it off as another Kerry/Edwards cat fight!--IDuan 21:27, 6 February 2008 (EST)

The main page is the only place where I can get away with a "news style" headline like that. For example, the Drudge Report has a headline, "American businesswoman jailed in Saudi - for going to STARBUCKS" but when you read the story it is not for entering the store but for sitting with an unrelated man in a public place.

(Stop me if I'm imitating the wrong sort of media practice. ;-)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)

Hmmm, if you're saying that you are deliberately creating misleading headlines, then I think I ought to tell you to stop it. Philip J. Rayment 00:42, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Very irreverent Rowan Atkinson monologue, but I love the part when he says "Atheists over here... you must be feeling a right bunch of nitwits!" 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 09:30, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Reminds me of Billy Joel singing, "Some people live with the fear of ... the anger of having been a fool" (see An Innocent Man). --

Hey Ed Poor, we've decided to do a quick Contest 5 starting at what will probably be midnight tonight - so sign up as soon as possible! Conservapedia:Contest5#Those Interested In Participating Please Put Your Name Here.--IDuan 21:04, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Great article Ed, although I have to ask: are you a Mac guy, or a PC guy?--IDuan 19:44, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Started off with the Mac, but I had to switch to the PC to support my wife and kids. Downgrading to Windows 95 was the low point of my computer career. The Macintosh already had full 32-bit multasking eleven years when it first came out in 1984!

The only advantage Windows has over Mac now is integration of the two-button mouse. I wish I could go back. I could ... -Ed

Thanks for creating the Obama on rifles page. I moved the discussion from the Talk:Main Page: Obama on rifles to Talk:Obama on rifles. When we have large discussions like this in the future, this might be a way to make it easier to archive the Talk:Main Page. --Crocoite 10:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I was doing categorizing like that earlier but someone blocked my other account--ETsa 13:59, 4 March 2008 (EST)

If you are blocked, you need to communicate with the blocking admin to find out why. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:01, 4 March 2008 (EST)

He was blocked several times by myself and others; all he ever did was come in and do mass-category changes as users Qqqqq, Java7837, and others. Karajou 14:04, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Wrong I categorized the uncategorized categories--Fdfd 14:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AliceBG (talk)

• "the United States has acknowledged North Vietnam's agreement to the Geneva Conventions of 1949"

Thanks, Alice. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:00, 6 March 2008 (EST)

*ties an olive branch around a white dove and tosses it in your general direction* Hey, I know that controversies are a dangerous zone full of heated discussion, but I'm not really here for that. My aim is simply to keep things clear for a reader.

In this case, I felt that your version of Polar bear sort of mixed a few sets of cause and effect (hunting leading to a decline, hunting bans leading to recovery, projection/estimation that global warming will lead to decline and should be fought). That's why I covered the history of the population and the given reason for listing it as vulnerable in one section and the activism and hype around global warming in another one.

I'm not here to take sides (from the looks of it, actively taking sides is sort of like doing a sack race through a mine field here), but I think it's important to keep facts (it's a fact that the IUCN lists global warming as the reason; whether that's reality is another question altogether) away from what political activists say and do.

I was a bit surprised at your reaction to my comment, but I guess that I could have phrased it more clearly (even though the post was getting too long already and since I assumed that nobody would think that I just claimed complete authority and omniscience over the field). I hope we'll get along despite this not-quite-optimal start. :) --DHayes 21:00, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Peace accepted. :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:04, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't meaning to change the subject-- I wasn't aware that the Australian spelling was different. Barikada 23:47, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

It is a classic work of art, is it that offensive to you? BTW, finding a G-rated picture of King David will be difficult due to obscenely expensive price of film during his reign. DLerner 08:12, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

What a strange chap you are. Koba 08:20, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

1. Please avoid personal remarks.
2. Change it back if you wish.

In a comment on another item you recently said "we are under no Wikipedian obligation to be neutral here". But you seem to wish for such neutrality when discussing antisemitic demagogues. Why? Koba 08:26, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Please refer to point #2 above. Thanks! :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:28, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

"In most non-scientific prose, it is common to give approximate values. That being the norm, there is no need to use about in phrases like, "The first airplane was flown by the Wright Brothers 100 years ago."" That implies the Bible is not scientific, doesn't it? Barikada 19:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

No, that implies that the particular passage about the circumference of that 10-cubit circle wasn't intended to be scientifically precise. Kings is history. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:08, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Right, right. History. Barikada 19:11, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Was unjustified. You imputed a snarkiness to my comment, and a willful ignorance, that wasn't there. I forgive you, though, but what happened to "assume good faith"?-PhoenixWright 09:35, 13 March 2008 (EDT)