User talk:Ed Poor/11

Since I'm not able to upload pictures myself, I was wondering if you'd be able to upload this picture for me [[1]]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

*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)

"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)

Thanks for the grammar update... That thing's been up there for months and nobody (including me!) has ever noticed! HelpJazz 19:03, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

You've archived an unfulfilled request to update template documentation. As the Personal remark ellipsis template was not documented, it has been deleted. However, there is an outstanding request to update help:templates for the templates that you renamed. Thanks. Philip J. Rayment 06:20, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Philip J. Rayment 08:16, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Given that you just documented the {{Atheists}} template, what help do you need with the ellipsis one? And do you need help deleting {{Personal remark ellipsis In a brazen display of arrogance,}}?

Also, you still need to add these and other templates to the Templates list.

Philip J. Rayment 10:45, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

G'day, mate! Please supply the documentation for those templates you think we should keep and feel free to delete all unhelpful ones. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:28, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm disappointed that we can't have a legitimate debate about your use of polemic and aggression towards your ideological opponents that doesn't end in me being blocked. Frankly, I think this says more about you than it does about me. I hope maybe we can talk freely and openly about this issue some day. In the meantime, I'll be working on some legal articles.-PhoenixWright 11:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Feel free to suggest some Debate Topics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)

While Kaufmann is correct, I think his statement would carry more substance if it was linked instead from the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace article; agreed that it is the same writer, same words, just that on first glance most people would reject him as "just" a blogger. What do you think? 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 10:43, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:49, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Hello, Ed! I was just going through my list of open issues again, and I noticed that this one was still open, so I'm requesting input more directly.

This was added to Double standard by you. On the article's talk page, Maupiti and I wondered where this claim comes from and whether it's true since it's extremely specific and sounds unlikely. Can you help us shed some light on this one? --DHayes 08:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is this important to you? --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

I noticed the question being raised in the Recent Changes back then, I checked it out, I agreed that it's an issue, I consider the claim odd and unlikely enough to justify a simple question. --DHayes 09:01, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"Simple question" is a liberal code word for, "I am trying to score a point." If you'll reveal your motivation, I'll let you know whether I can help you. --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:23, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

-(

How so? Orrelon 09:32, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Hi Ed, sorry about our little misunderstanding. Could you please direct me to a place where I can get to grips on the rules. I thought this was an Americo-Centric Encyclopedia. Orrelon 09:50, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Commandments --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:52, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Why are you reverting my edits? I don't see how I'm breaking the commandments. Orrelon 09:53, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Ed, could you please unlock Conservapedia talk:Commandments? Thanks. HelpJazz 22:31, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks! HelpJazz 22:40, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Your supposed role at Wikipedia is exactly why i would never trust information from that place, never mind here. Wearethefuture 11:26, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

you just redirected something to a none-existent page. why? ד.לערנער 11:39, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I was hoping that the Fundamentalist Christianity article had already been started. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:54, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

<sigh> YES, you should have checked ד.לערנער 11:56, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, I don't know about that. There's such a thing as a forward reference, you know. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:58, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

And again, you do it. How long do you suppose it will stay like this, Ed? -_- Fuzzy|AFD 17:30, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

• However long he wishes, one would suppose. Perhaps the forward-thinking suggestion should be taken, and the article created in the time it takes to post messages on talk pages? --₮K^/Talk 18:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed, what's up? "He has attracted criticism for referring to himself as a professor although he got his current post without going through the required peer review process that a professor ship requires." That sentence does not sound particularly encyclopedic in style, and your edit summary puzzled me ("hi andy").--Aschlafly 19:05, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Ed. I really mean it. I've never thought about leaving Conservapedia, until today. Not once. As long as that page stays like it is (and no other pages use me as a reference...) I might just stay a little longer. Of course, this isn't the first time I have been called ignorant and told that someone else knows more about me than I do, so we'll see what the future holds, I guess. I wish I knew what I was doing to prompt such attacks....

Thanks again. HelpJazz 20:21, 19 March 2008 (EDT) PS: I suppose it would probably be pushing my luck to reinstate my comment without the "foul" language, huh?

Enough single-quote articles! Put them all in one article, for pity's sake. ShaggerNorris 18:06, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

1. Keep your insults to yourself. 2. Your ridiculous articles are making CP a laughing stock. I won't say you are making yourself one, for the obvious reason. ShaggerNorris 18:10, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Sorry if I sounded grumpy earlier. My sleep schedule got messed up last night. I went to dinner and had a good dessert, so I should be better now :) HelpJazz 19:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey, Ed. Do you have any objections to me fixing the broken redirect at Fundamentalist Christian? Barikada 20:41, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Ed, Granting independence to a homeland is central to the implementation of apartheid, since the basic principle of apartheid is that no ethnic group should govern over another!

Thanks for your comment! Appreciated very much! Adi 23:11, 28 March 2008 (GMT+2)

What is wrong with the source page? This has already been discussed and agreed upon here, I am surprised there is a problem. TheGySom 20:25, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

I would follow instructions and email you, but it won’t allow me (you have chosen not to receive emails from users).

For a start I don’t see what is pointless with my arguing, I chose to discuss rather than engage in an edit war, and I do not see anything invalid with my points (one was supported by HelpJazz, two were not protested and the forth was currently being discussed). If you look closely you will see that I was very open to change and tried to stick to the issue at hand.

As for refusing to do work as assigned, I apologise for reverting you but I thought my edit summary explained the situation. Half of the current article talks about the fact that words in the Ancient Language bring what they mean (incorporated into the new article) and the other half talks about a specific word for fire, which too has been incorporated into the new article as an example. The mention of the name of the book has already been incorporated into the blanket article on the series. In short, all the information has already been incorporated into other articles, and the article is ready to be redirected. This has already been discussed and given the go ahead in the merge proposal with the creator of the article and other users.

Also, I only reverted you once, and stopped when you told me to. I don’t see how I refused to do work as assigned.

I am more than happy to continue discussing any misunderstandings with you, if you desire this to be over email then feel free to send me one, it has been set up with my original account. The ONLY reason why I created this one was because I am unable to email you. TGStoEP 20:38, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

I checked the "Enable e-mail from other users" box; I have no idea how that got unchecked.

Please don't ping-pong; let's keep all discussion on your talk page.

Your account is now unblocked. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:49, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Our AFD for "Place names beginning with an article" has stagnated and ended up with me and HelpJazz making total fools of ourselves. Please, I beg you, review it, make a descion, and close it (prefferably delete the AFD page also) before this goes any further. Bohdan 21:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh dear, I made a bit of a mistake and confused my singulars and plurals. Would you be able to move Setting and Culture in Inheritance Cycle to Settings and Cultures in Inheritance Cycle, I can handle the links pointing to the page. Thanks TheGySom 21:17, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Singular is okay. Let's finish the article(s). --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:20, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

I've finished them as much as I can for now, my concern is that there are multiple settings and multiple cultures in the series, and a singular heading could cause confusion. I'll leave it up to you and BCS. TheGySom 21:22, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree, and will find the necessary cites to show the difference. I am still concerned that the article title is merely designed to obscure the truth, and was done in a Wikipedia-neutral style, Ed. Who in the world would know what that article is about, given its three initial title? Well, perhaps that was the point. --₮K^/Talk 23:10, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Dear Ed, I am currently trying to get night edit rights so that I can better contribute to Conservapedia. As a sysop who has had experience working with me, I would like to ask for your support. If you feel that I deserve edit rights, please say so here. If you do not think I deserve them, I fully understand and I thank you anyway. Sincerely, HelpJazz 01:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Um ... help? Check out the talk page. Everwill 16:09, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Can Mezitos be moved to Mestizo --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Never mind --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Dear Ed. This space for Masterpiece of the week is updated every week with material that we have selected with care and based on painting schools and artistic criterion. If you want to join the team, you are welcome. Please let me know if we can keep following our list and our time. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:06, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

That was just an April Fools Day joke - change it back as soon as it's not funny - or even right away if you're not chuckling along with me! ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:07, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. It was a good joke. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:10, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Just so you know I recently added some categories for category redirection they have to do with geography for example Category:Towns and Cities in China needs to be redirected to Category:Chinese Towns and Cities --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I have put EdBot to work on that. [2] --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Persimmon shoule be Permission --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Please move the article --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL, that was my little April Fools Day joke. I guess the emphasis should be on "little". --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:26, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

You said,

Wow, Ed, there are so many strawmen there, I feel like I'm in the middle of an Iowa cornfield. And a couple ugly little errors. Let's discuss the problems.

1. Liberals don't actually think of communism as the "paragon of social ethics." I might as well say that all Christians are Crusaders/Torquemata-style Grand Inquisitors. It's just not true. You're taking the worst of the worst of a group and imputing its qualities to the whole of the group. This is inaccurate. Please don't willfully misrepresent other peoples' beliefs.
2. Slavery isn't about numbers. Regardless of the numbers, race-based slavery and the notions of superiority/inferiority it entails is absolutely wrong, and no number disparity with someone worse will wash the guilt away.
3. How is that even related to your point? Are slaveowning Arabs liberals? Weird.

You don't treat the issue of, "conservatives are more moral than liberals" head on. You treat it by obfuscating the issue and erecting ugly little strawmen. But, allow me to treat the issue head on. Here we go.

Conservative Christians are not more moral than liberals. In fact, they are less moral, because fundamentalist Christians practice a form of coerced morality. You do good (or, well, try to!) because you believe that, if you don't, you face eternal damnation, and if you do, you face eternal reward. You're doing good for selfish reasons, because you think God wants you to do it, and will hurt you if you don't. As Einstein said, "if we are good only because we fear punishment, and hope for reward, we are a sorry lot indeed." Well said. You are a sorry lot indeed.

On the contrary, liberals are good and moral not because we seek reward from our Invisible Buddy. We do it because we feel a duty flows between every human to every other human, as a moral precept independent of any notion of eternal reward.

Consider two customers, in a store where the manager has stepped outside for a moment, for some reason. One customer chooses not to steal, because security cameras are watching. One chooses not to steal, because it's wrong and would hurt the manager unfairly.

Which of those customers is the more ethical? I think I know.-ArcturusM 10:58, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Regarding morals, "liberals" (i.e. non-Christians as far as this point is concerned), have no basis for morals. Christians have a basis: the standard God set, and they follow those because God sets the example and because we love to do what He wants, not because of coercion. Coercion is for those who would do something wrong if they didn't think they were being watched, not for those who don't have the inclination in the first place, as in Christians transformed by the Holy Spirit. But atheists, as admitted by Dawkins and others, have no basis. You do "moral" things because you choose to (mostly because of an inherited Christian heritage), but many choose not to, and as an atheist (if you are), you have no basis for telling those other atheists that what they are doing is "wrong", because you have no basis for right and wrong, other than your opinion. And their opinion differs. That's why atheistic communist regimes murdered so many: because atheism has no absolute basis for saying that such murders are wrong. It's just your opinion versus their opinion. Philip J. Rayment 11:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Arcturus makes the same mistake he complains of in my own writing. Of course, I'm well aware that not all liberals approve of communism and its multi-million-man mass murder campaigns. But he pretends that this means that no liberals at all favor it, which is obviously false.

Then he turns right around and pretends that I'm a fundamentalist, fire and brimstone Christian. I would ban him for personal remarks, but it's more fun to keep him around as a bad example. No offense, okay? :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:16, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I corrected your spelling of my user name. You're welcome. And thank you for not blocking me, I appreciate it. So often, CP sysops block & then respond, making it look like they "won" the debate, when really they just clobbered the opposition out of existence. It happens so often, but you wouldn't do that, would you?

Now, Ed, I fail to see how I'm guilty of the exact same misstep. You overgeneralized, imputing the minority to the majority; I declined to impute the minority to the majority, and you call that the same error? Hmmm. Incorrect. And I apologize if I imagined that you're a "fire and brimstone fundamentalist," but your edits had convinced me that you were. After all, the "A*** F******" stuff, and the "they're dirty," and the "liberals are categorically less human than conservatives" stuff seemed fairly dispositive. Apologies if I was wrong.

PJR, thank you for the reply, but I think you fall into the same problem. If the issue is about whose morality is objective, and whose isn't, I don't think you're going to win. Your choice to believe in the Bible is a choice, just the same as my choice to not do so is a choice. Any belief system is a choice. But that doesn't mean that there is no objective morality; nor does it mean that, absent reliance upon a 2000 year old book, there can be no morality. That point doesn't answer mine about coerced morality. This is an important discussion to have, so I hope to continue it.-ArcturusM 15:04, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

By the way, I wasn't aware that calling someone a "fundamentalist" was a pejorative (read, "insultive") term. Similarly, what if I'm gay, or some of my best friends are gay (the last one is true)? Wouldn't your words be deeply offensive to me, in that case? Do I have a right to enforce, or are the rules only for banning annoying people, not siteadmins?-ArcturusM 15:18, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, one chooses to believe in the Bible, but as you say, that doesn't mean that there's no objective morality. I didn't say that objective morality is only possible because of a 2,000-year-old book (by the way, the youngest parts of the Bible are 2,000 years old, the oldest parts are at least 3,500 years old, and possibly up to 6,000 years old). Objective morality is only possible if it's based on something outside mankind's opinions, i.e. our Creator. That is, He decides what is right and wrong (which He has the right to do, because He made us), rather than us deciding. If it's us deciding what's right and wrong, then it's just our opinion, and different people have different opinions. Of course, our decisions in that regard may be objectively decided according to certain criteria (e.g. does it harm another person), but the selection of the criteria is subjective opinion. And I did answer your point about coerced morality.

"Fundamentalist" is not pejorative if used with one of its original meanings, such as it referring to a person who believes the fundamental teachings of the Bible. But more often than not these days its used to mean an extremist or a legalist, and using it that way is pejorative.

Philip J. Rayment 21:35, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

What scares me is the religious people who claim, with a straight face, that if it wasn't for God constantly watching their every move, they'd have no morality whatsoever, and would immediately embark on a ten-state rape-and-murder spree. Fortunately, all the ones I've met that talk like that either haven't had their faith weaken, or underestimated their own innate moral code, because not one of them has made the ten-o-clock news yet. --Gulik5 22:56, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Can you ran that bot again I added so more categories that need category redirection --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed, I was interested to read your discussion on political correctness and how liberals censor ordinary words because of some perceived bias. I tried to write an article here last year about the great British culinary dish known as faggots and was heavily censored by several prominent sysops here. The article was deleted with (and I paraphrase here) "we're not having any of that filth here". It was only later that I learned that faggot has another meaning in the United States. However, the content of the article in question was purely in good taste and espoused the wholesomeness of a British regional dish. If I was to repost a similar article would I have your assurance that it would be treated in good faith and not consigned to the dustbin of history? Brixham 18:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Just a thought, but I detect a bit of mischief here. As it were. --₮K^/Talk 18:40, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Goodsir, I ask a simple question and you take the hostile liberal tactic of questioning my motives. I agree 100% with Ed Poor's denunciation of political correct language. However, your snide insinuation of mischief negates the assumption of good faith on your part and seems to imply a hostility to cultural values outside the United States of America. Faggot is not a term of abuse in Great Britain and I see no reason why the facts about the term should not be presented in its cultural context. Should a prurient mind search for the term then they would only find a wholesome description of the article. I can see nothing untoward in that. Brixham 19:49, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

1. May be I honest? => I am about to insult you.
2. May I ask a question? => I have a point to make.
3. All I did was => Don't criticize me.

Please give your excuse by number to save time. ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for that handy translation guide! Here's a few more, to help confused newbies to the site:

1. 90/10 rule => Shut up and edit more articles, you filthy peasant.
2. Liberal Deceit => Who cares if you're making good points? You're evil, and I'm ignoring you. So shut up.
3. Liberal => Anything a sysop here doesn't like.

I hope other people will find these just as helpful fnord. --Gulik5 22:52, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Brixham, just because someone claims that "faggot" is not a term of abuse in Britain doesn't mean that it isn't, and American editors here tend to be somewhat suspicious about such things. Of course, it should be fairly easy to check up on such things, and that is something that should be done. (As an Aussie, I probably tend to be more familiar than many Americans with Britishisms, but this one is outside my knowledge.)

But probably more to the point, and even assuming that you are correct, is that the selection of such articles does appear to have been made in order to make Conservapedia look bad. It's like the double entendre: a line that superficially has an innocent meaning but everyone except the very naive really knows has a second, and more salacious, meaning. So it would appear that one or more persons have deliberately chosen to write articles about genuine British things (e.g. foods) that they know Americans will find offensive because the terms mean something different to Americans.

Now it's possible that what I've just described is simply our imagination and suspicion going into overdrive, and that it's all innocent. But it's also possible that what I said is totally correct.

Anyway, the point of this is to explain what's going in, in case you really are innocent in all this.

Philip J. Rayment 21:45, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Agree with PJR 100%, but am more convinced than ever that mischief is afoot, especially after this topic drew another, formerly blocked admin from another wiki, to comment. And LOL @ Ed Poor's witty retort!

--₮K^/Talk 22:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I have merged the Scottish Government article into Scotland, so you can delete it. The First Minister article is not my work but it should go into the Principal Government Officials section of Scotland. I will write about devolved matters in the Scottish Parliament article. That should remain a separate article and I also want to add things about how the members are elected etc. --Vaganyik 07:47, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Good, but I'm still not clear on what "devolved matters" are. I'd like to understand how the Government of Scotland works. Perhaps you could contrast it with the only other government I understand well, the federal system used in America. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Devolved matters are the issues which the Scottish Parliament can legislate on. Devolved by the UK Parliament to the Scottish Parliament. The rest of the issues are reserved matters. I will add this to the Scottish Parliament article. --Vaganyik 07:59, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, I did my best at Devolved but your explanation is better. :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:03, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

There has been a Devolution article for a while. British politics is about three things: European integration, devolution and (im)migration. --Vaganyik 14:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed,

I'm told from TK and others that you're quite bright. Will you please, PLEASE, use your big brain to find some other way to express yourself, other than splitting a really fine semantic hair to justify using "dick" in a sentence? Yes, you can point to another definition of it, but are you really saying you can't follow the etymology back enough to figure out WHY you'd call a person a dick?

No, I don't have any authority to "make" you stop. I'm not "ordering" you to stop. I'm appealing to you, please, to stop. It's just crass, man. Aziraphale 14:39, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I'll stop if you'll stop. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Deal. Aziraphale 17:35, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I would like to use this opportunity to protest my recent blocking. I made one direct edit on the topic of homosexuality (on Anita Bryant's article) that was backed up by a citation. Then I was blocked for too many pro-"gay" edits. I followed Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 3, as well as the rule of being "accurate and fair" set forth in the Editor's Guide. Why, then, was I blocked? Adg2011 17:33, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry I forgot to sign my earlier post. Adg2011 17:34, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Sealand is an actual country see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

No, it's just a rock.

Cargo cults do exist see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

--  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I read the article, found it hard to believe, and Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source. I've restored the article but replaced it with a claim reported in Smithsonian magazine. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Sealand does exist - WP is correct - and it's not a rock but a WW2 anti-aircraft tower in the Thames estuary: a steel structure. Grabberma 06:25, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

It truly is a country, I also found it hard to believe at first. -- Mitch ^U/T/C 06:55, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

It's not significant. Let's write about all the other recognized enclaves first. Meanwhile, the claims of autonomy for the tower squatters can go in our Anarchy article. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:00, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I disagree that it's not significant, at least in recognition. It's at least more well known than a lot of the video game trivia we have on our site, and at least to me, more interesting. The People's Almanac devoted a lot of space to it one year. I do like Ed's suggestion that perhaps we redirect all these to an article called Micronations or something like that. DanH 07:15, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

All egpytian Deities articles should look like this

#Redirect[[Egyptian mythology]]

[[Category:Egyptian Deities]] --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

No, they all belong merged into Egyptian mythology until and unless you can prove that they were/are genuine deities. Otherwise they are just the stuff of myth. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:30, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I think what she was saying is that the redirect pages should have a category of Egyptian Mythology. I thought that putting a category on a redirect page stops it redirecting, but I've just tested that (over EdBot's interference), and that's not the case. I still have doubts that it's a good idea though. Philip J. Rayment 22:12, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

The category function of MediaWiki lets us make lists of articles. I don't want one article per god or deity or whatever she thinks the ancients were worshiping. A description of the pantheon is okay, but let's not clutter up the place with stubs. I blocked User:Deborah for undoing my work on this, ignoring my requests, etc. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

That's my point: I don't think she was proposing stubs (after you merged them). She wanted to add categories to the redirects, so that the category page would list the various gods. Now I think you are right, though, that category pages should be lists of articles, not (for example) gods, so the category should not list various gods which all point to one article. But even though I agree with that point, my main point is that she wasn't continuing to push for articles, as you appear to be claiming, but merely to have categories on the redirect pages. Philip J. Rayment 22:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Ooooookay. You 'prove' that Jesus, JHVH, and the Holy Ghost "were/are genuine deities", and the rest of us will just repeat your methodology on OUR favorite gods. How's that sound? --Gulik5 21:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

It sounds like you're trying to be consistent. That's a good start.

Now please submit a Conservapedia:writing plan. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:36, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Struck that out because it's a bit hard to expect someone to submit something that doesn't exist (i.e. redlink). Philip J. Rayment 22:12, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL, once he creates it, it will exist. Maybe he'll email me. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:13, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I see that you created an article called Hindu deities since other mythology articles are in the format .... mythology, could you move Hindu deities tyo Hindu mythology --Ghost 08:06, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Explain first why you think the "deities" of Hinduism are in the same category as those of Celtic mythology. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:12, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Look up the definition of mythology, Hinduism fit the criteria, also just because someone believes in Hinduism doesn't mean that Hinduism is not a mythology, because there are Neo-Druids who worship the Celtic deities, there is also a neopagan movement that worships Norse deities --Ghost 08:30, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

It's not your place to give out reading assignments, but rather mine to give out writing assignments. If you know more about the neopagan movement than I do, then that would be a good topic for you. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:41, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

My friend is neopagan, and I study theology, I know a lot about the different pagan religions --Ghost 08:42, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I think Hindu deities should be moved to Hindu mythology --Ghost 08:43, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Well it is not a book. Wht should I do it that article. I m currebtly busy now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamkay (talk)

Am I allowed to combined all Roman mythology articles into Roman mythology

You can do the merge, but let me do the redirects. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:20, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Okay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisGomez (talk)

Are you going to do the redirects for the Shinto deities or can I do them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisGomez (talk)

I will delegate that task to a trusted subordinate. ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:44, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Can I combined the Greek mythology articles into Greek mythology —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisGomez (talk)

You may help, but only if you start signing your talk page entries. Use ~~~~ and the web site will provide a link to your user page, along with a timestamp. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Okay --ChrisGomez 10:51, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Is the merge complete enough see Greek mythology --ChrisGomez 11:25, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

The only problem is the pictures--ChrisGomez 11:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

You can use the thumb tag to make them smaller. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Did it --ChrisGomez 11:35, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Finished going throught the articles --ChrisGomez 13:39, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Can the articles from Category:Greek Mythology, and Category:Greek Deities be merged into Greek mythology I removed from these cats articles that don't belong--ChrisGomez 13:44, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't know. Some of the "bigger" Olympians might need to keep articles of their own, but the minor ones could be merged. Use good judgment. Think of what the reader will be trying to find. --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:46, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree that the Olympians should have their own articles but links should be under the see also of Greek mythology article to the olympians --ChrisGomez 13:48, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Please propose an organizational scheme. --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:49, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

==Charon==

Charon (mythology): '''Charon''', in Greek mythology was the ferryman of the ghosts of th...

--ChrisGomez 13:51, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

for olympians

==Zeus==

see [[Zeus]]

--ChrisGomez 13:53, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Is that good? --ChrisGomez 13:54, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

All olympians are now in Category:Olympians --ChrisGomez 14:08, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

This reorganization has completely messed up the navbox schema now. They have been removed from pages which interlink to them, :( BrianCo 17:39, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I am absolutely shocked articles on this topic are missing! :P --₮K^/Talk 15:53, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Visigoths were Christian. They practiced Arianism - which is to say, they had only one God. I'll write an article.-Historian 16:00, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't believe, prior to 507 (when the Catholics began to make major inroads) this was so. King Leovigild brought all of Spain under Visigothic rule, and his son Reccared imposed a single religion, in the later part of the 6th Century. --₮K^/Talk 16:21, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Many of the barbarian kingdoms were Christianized before the fall of the Roman empire my friend, but they generally followed Arianism as Historian makes mention. They later converted to Catholicism. Learn together 16:25, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I never raised an argument, LT, about that. I merely made a mention, tongue in cheek, to my other good friend, Ed Poor, about the lacking.  ;-) --₮K^/Talk 16:32, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I'll write some articles on the subject. Peter Wolfram's "The Goths" is informative on it.-Historian 16:34, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Historian, and please forgive my dislike of red links by curing that on your pages! :-) --₮K^/Talk 17:22, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure what humility, friendship or sense of humor should be categorised as. Could you please lend a hand. TheGySom 07:19, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Just a thought - how about 'personal qualities' or something alonmg those lines? Mediaevalist 07:25, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Sounds like a great idea, only sysops are allowed to create categories, but I can't see anything wrong with your suggestion. Also add hatred to the list. TheGySom 07:27, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

only sysops are allowed to create categories

Are you sure? I'm not a sysop and have created plenty in my time. Mediaevalist 07:29, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

I didn't know that; please quote (or link to) that rule.

If you can't find it, then I'd like to give you an assignment: look up Bill Bennett's Book of Virtues on the web and copy his list of virtues somewhere on CP. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:31, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Human Traits, perhaps? We are the only creatures who exhibit those qualities. --₮K^/Talk 07:37, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't know - 'man's best friend' and all that? And animals, even of different species, can form attachments to each other that see very close to friendship. Mediaevalist 07:40, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

It may have been an unwritten rule, or I may be confusing here with another place. Whichever way it is usually best to delegate tasks such as these to sysops to avoid overcategorisation, incorrect categorisation, duplicate categorisation and so on. As for the assignment, I'll get cracking on it if I have time.

With respect to the previous comment (which caused an edit conflict, grrr...) can hatred/love/friendship be seen in animals, or is this purely instinctial? TheGySom 07:41, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

I can't remember ever hearing a dog laugh, but I'm sure God created dogs to be loyal and affectionate. Let's go with TK's category for now; can you take care of loyalty and affection for me? --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

My Fifth Grade teacher, Mrs. Browning, had a dog, Tiki, who could count......seemingly. --₮K^/Talk 07:52, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

See Clever Hans. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:53, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

This comment was automatically appended to the end of my user talk page. I clicked on the '+' link at the top of the page, just to the right of the 'edit' link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)

Ed, do you know anything about the LaTeX math used on this site? If so, could you see here, and if not, who should I talk to? The gist of things is I want to write about a function used in combinatorics, but our version of LaTeX math does not seem to include a way to display said function. HelpJazz 18:06, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

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

I figured out what I needed :)

This stuff just isn't very intuitive. HelpJazz 18:17, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

• Roger Schlafly might know. I believe his email is enabled here. --₮K^/Talk 18:20, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

I figured it out for now. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll keep it in mind if I have trouble in the future. HelpJazz 18:21, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for all your category work. I'd award you a barnstar but I have no clue how to make one. DanH 23:43, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome. And could you ask Deborah to help me? I'd like her to create fewer stubs and do more consolidating and merging. For example, we don't need an article on "places" in the video game called Legend of Zelda. --Ed Poor ^Talk 23:46, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree I will try not to make stubs --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Merging is good. Look what it did for the 13 colonies! :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 23:58, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Haha funny comment --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

How were you able to edit that page? When I tried to edit it, the word filter blocked me because of the first three letters of his last name. DanH 00:13, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

I deleted his name from the last section. --Ed Poor ^Talk 00:14, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Hello, I just added some wikilinks to the Mind and Brain articles you created, and I'm not sure if I had to. Are they OK? WilliamH 11:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

What do you mean by calling me a kleptomaniac? o_0 Fuzzy|AFD 19:12, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Brr?! What makes you think I was talking about you? Wyzzy|DBAD 06:21, 10 April 2008 (EDT)