User talk:Ed Poor/12

Can't stop grinning

[snip] 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)

*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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Liberal speak:

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.

Sysop speak:

1. 90/10 rule => Shut up and edit more articles.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hello, I wanted to report a vandal (User:Jibbajabba), he changed a link to an unrelated video in the Video game controversy page.

Qwerrt has just v.andalised the Marxism page. TheGySom 07:29, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Not sure if this is the right place for discussion, but noticed you deleted the article Christianophobia. It is a neologism used to describe an irrational fear of Christians which is present in many Muslim countries and among liberals and leftists. "Christanophobia" is considered an analogy of "Anti-Semitism" or another neologism "Islamophobia". Anti-Christian sentiment is generally used for describing discrimination against Christians, but this term has been used in various sources including United Nations and by several academics. United Nations described it as "deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia in various parts of the world". A google book search shows 24 ghits for the term [1] and google scholar shows 14 ghits [2]. This article was also written in wikipedia, but they redirected it to anti-Christian sentiment, but kept the term Islamophobia. We have another article Conservaphobia, I think some of the political neologisms which end with "-phobia" may not be directly associated with medical science, but have academic significance. --Dendronicus 08:37, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Article revived; and expanded, using your comments above. Thanks! --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:44, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I just noted a policy you started which allows sysops to order other contributors to do writing assignments. I am curious about the justification for this. What are the consequences of totally ignoring such an order? Are we going to be paid if we finish the assignments. ( I heard some rumours about that). Please provide the information. Thank you. May Lord Krishna will you!--Krishnapooja 10:05, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

why are you silent about this question? EdPoor? Thanks in advance for a reply. --Maayan 09:21, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I have occasionally handed out writing assignments to volunteers whose random edits were doing more harm than good. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:52, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't trying to make a point I was simply trying to make a category for a notable minority, I also desired to make a category for American LGBT people. --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Don't. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:38, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Okay, that is why i was discussing it with an admin to make sure it was an acceptable proposal--  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I just stumbled over this essay via the "Random page" link. The name says it's an essay, the template says it's an original work, but the link shows that it's merely a section copied from the source. While I understand that this is apparently acceptable in regular articles, I'm not quite sure if the "This Is An Original Work." template belongs on it. Maybe you (being the one who started this essay) could take a look at it and decide whether the template belongs there? Thanks. --MilesM 15:58, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

You should have just fixed it yourself: I didn't apply that silly "original work" tag. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:03, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

It had been there for more than four months. I figured I'd have the few minutes to verify before potentially making a mistake ;) *goes ahead then* --MilesM 16:05, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

My first computer programming boss told me, 'If you don't make 50 mistakes a day, you're not trying hard enough.' --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:08, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Correct, but in community-based projects, many mistakes can be avoided by communicating before acting. Not all mistakes, of course, but you happened to be around, so I figured I could ask you at the Company Watercooler, so to speak. --MilesM 16:12, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

If it's just a quote, it's not really an "essay", is it? Perhaps it would be better on a sub-page of your user page, or even just a quote on your user page? Philip J. Rayment 22:42, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Madison makes two ordinary talk edits and gets a permanent block? What's the matter with you? ---user:DLerner--- 22:45, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry I made a sock, but my account was banned and my email was blocked for some reason. I tried emailing to cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com but it got sent back with the reason, "Message rejected because mta15.adelphia.net [68.168.78.77]:64550 is blacklisted at relays.ordb.org see ordb.org was shut down on December 18, 2006. Please remove from your mailserver." It also wont send an email to me to confirm my email address. My only choice was to create a new account when my IP address changed. Why exactly was I blocked? I'm not exactly sure what I did that would qualify as "subtle mockery". I admit I've engaged in a few arguments, but anything I did was on a talk page, not an article, and I think I at least deserve a warning before I am blocked "with an expiry time of infinite". Fernoklump 18:27, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Hey, what's up with some of your articles just being quote boxes? If you used the link at the end as a reference, then there's no need for the box, right? And do me a favour, add categories to your pages when you create them, it is really ticking me off when I have to keep categorizing your pages. +_+ Fuzzy|AFD 23:39, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Nevermind, I have a great way to categorize them... Category:Ed Poor's Articles, Which He Forgot to Categorize —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kektklik (talk)

A reference may simply mean that the referenced source can back up the claim made. It doesn't in and of itself mean that the text is a quote. And when text is quoted, it needs to be clear that it is a quote. There are various ways to show that something is a quote, including surrounding it with quote marks. However, simply putting quoted text inside quote marks is not the normal way of quoting large blocks of text (e.g. more than, say, a sentence). See Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive1#Quotes for more on the different ways of indicating that text is a quote.

And in Ed Poor's defence, I've often struggled to know how an article I write should be categorised, so leave it to others who have that skill. Forgetting is not the only problem.

Philip J. Rayment 03:05, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Dear Ed Poor, Can I have a writing assignment please? --Superserious 16:29, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Hello Ed! I was planning on getting back to contributing substantially to Conservapedia, but considering recent events I thought perhaps I wouldn't risk it without a clear direction (I'm certainly not touching my userpage, haha). So as not to waste your time, I'll be brief: could you assign me a writing assignment as well? I will do my best to complete it to a reasonable standard. Feebasfactor 17:11, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and if not (or if I have misinterpreted the purpose of writing plans/assignments), well I apologize for bothering you! Feebasfactor

What subjects do you want to volunteer to write about? --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:08, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

My interests include

• Butterflies
• Beetles
• ecology
• German cuisine
• Abuse of power
• Some history

thanks

An article on abuse of power would be super, Serious. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:02, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

what about abuse of power by sysops? lol!--Superserious 15:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

And how much is the going rate per article? --Superserious 15:41, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The same that we all get paid. The calculation of good will or your pleasure at completing a job well done can not be measured. Learn together 15:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Most of us get zero cents per word, but in your case I'm willing to double that. ;-)

Ed, I just realized I did not reply to your inquiry... apologies for this unintentional incivility. I did in fact consider what subject I would be best suited to write about, but I discovered that I was not really ready (or even able, currently) to continue contributing to Conservapedia at this time. Hopefully this will not be the end of me, and I'll see you again at some point. :) Feebasfactor 00:04, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

P.S. Superserious, I assume that you're... not being serious. :p Conservapedia is an exclusively voluntary project. Volunteers help because they enjoy editing here and their work is appreciated, and they see Conservapedia has a strong potential. Feebasfactor 00:11, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I see you are an admin, so I have a ? for you, Can I make a category for landlocked countries? --PabloG 10:25, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

I'd rather have an article on landlocked countries first. What's the category for? --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:33, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

On my user page I listed many landlocked countries see User:PabloG --PabloG 10:35, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Also making an article on it is a good idea but first I think a category should be made--PabloG 10:36, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Andy Schlafly said to go ahead, and he's the project director. But thanks for keeping me informed. :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:20, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I'm with Ed on this one. I'd say the first step would be to create an article with a list of the landlocked countries, then see about a category. For one thing it makes sure you've already completed it, and for another it also gives us time to review it seeing the finished product. There are too many people who start a category, fill in 10 entries, and then it let it go unfinished. It's too easy to let that happen. Learn together 15:19, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Looks like Category:Landlocked Countries already has been made. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:28, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

I am unsure what you mean about explaining metabolism in terms for a highschool student. I know that biochemical metabolism is explained in AP courses in biology in many of the highschools in the US and the topics I outlined are all covered within a standard AP Bio course. The chemistry is also covered in most AP chemistry courses as well. If it is a question about terminology, the terms that are used are actual names of molecules and the reactions that create them, all items covered in AP courses. Now, however, if we are to set the standard to that of a basic highschool student with no intrest in the biological sciences then of course the material would be beyond them thus the need for the article moot.--Able806 11:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I reject your either-or reasoning. If you want to contribute here, try to make the subject accessible to people who haven't completed an honors course.

Anything can be explained in simply terms. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:36, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Sure, but then you end up knowing little, should we really dumb down information so a teenager will understand it? If you don't challenge kids they won't learn. ---user:DLerner--- 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

It is not our place to force teenagers to learn the way we would want them to. This sites tries to reach them where they are at and makes it easily accessible for them to move around and check up whatever topics they wish. Articles can be informative while also being easy to follow. Learn together 12:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

If making it easily accessible to the typical kid comes at the expense of information then what the heck are we doing, I don't care how Andy started it, it's for everyone now. ---user:DLerner--- 12:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

You are making the same mistake my colleague made once: the assumption that describing something in simple terms is de facto the same as dumbing it down. In his case, the error was sincere, and I was able to show him how to ease into a subject with a layman's introduction.

There's nothing wrong with starting off slow. But the fact that some topics have prequisites by no means indicates a need for inaccessible terminology. In other words, you can't learn advanced topics before you understand some elementary concepts. But that's no excuse for using SAT words in the article intro.

What are you afraid of? That readers might realize that mainstream biology is fooling people to win the origins debate? --Ed Poor ^Talk

• Are you saying that I'm insincere, another personal remark!
• I agree that the beginning should be simple, but the article as a whole should be articulate, even to the point of using SAT words.
• Afraid? That ALL of our articles will just be one sentence stubs.
• What makes you think I believe in evolution, because I'm a liberal? Truth is I'm sitting this debate out, 'cause until God says one way of the other, their is no way to know.

---user:DLerner--- 13:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

What do you mean, "until God says one way [or] the other"? He already has. Try reading the first few chapters of Genesis. Philip J. Rayment 03:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I should block you for making a meta-personal remark, i.e., hinting that my error was sincere remark was aimed at you. But first I have to wipe the coffee off my screen that I spattered upon reading your 3rd bullet point. :-)

Now would you like to help us get up some nice, simple, easily understood articles about biology? --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Not my field, sorry ---user:DLerner--- 13:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Besides, anything I write about human reproduction/reproductive organs/human sexual activity (all solid biology topics) will probably be removed and I'll end up blocked again. <sigh> if only God didn't hate sex... [JK] ---user:DLerner--- 13:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

You can't be blocked for carrying out a sysop request. --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Back to the point, however the conversation was interesting, I am ok with rewording so that the topic is easier to understand. Why write something if no one can understand it. However there is terminology that is not used in everyday English, such as free energy, but a person who has taken a high school physics class would understand this term. Basically some topics rely on past exposure to properly confer their subject. Chemistry relies on physics; physics relies on mathematics, ect. I mean we do have some calculus articles where one would have to have an understanding of algebra, geometry and trigonometry to benefit from the article just as a person would have to have an understanding of chemistry and physics to understand metabolism. (Yes, even though it is biochemistry, it is chemistry and physics in a biological system.) I read the introduction to biochemical metabolism and found a few terms that could be defined further, exergonic and endergonic, but the grammar is very simplistic however foreign the terminology may be. Perhaps the better solution is to provide a quick reference of scientific terminology. This way we do not have to define properly used terminology each time it is used in an article, such as Phosphorylation being defined as adding a phosphate group to something or Methylation being defined as the addition of a methyl group to something. This might help clarify to a layman who has not had a chemistry class since these two terms are learned in a high school chemistry class. As for AP, yes this level of chemistry is something that would be found in an AP course but it relies on an understand that is achievable from a common high school non advance chemistry and physics class.--Able806 14:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Can you explain how your lunch gives you energy to walk, sit, and type? --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I can. But it would exceed the limits of a biochemical metabolism article since we would then be discussing larger systems instead of what goes on within a cell. Perhaps it would be best to place this in with regular metabolism since there is already an article about it.--Able806 14:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed is there anyway you could move biological metabolism over to my user space? I am afraid that I might violate 90/10 if I keep editing it while it is in the talk space. Thanks--Able806 15:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Edits to a draft won't be included in any calculation. Please continue.

Remember that I'd like readers with no biological background to be able to understand at least the first paragraph of each article you submit. Like "Calculus can be used to compute the trajectory of a shuttle docking at a space station or the amount of snow in a driveway." [3]

I don't know what other discussion has been had on this on other pages, but the Guidelines on this are here. Philip J. Rayment 03:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Don't call someone a smart aleck, no matter how obnoxiously conceited and self-assertive person he is - not even if he shows pretensions to smartness or cleverness. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:41, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Did you just punish yourself for being rude? :) ---user:DLerner--- 12:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I tryed to log in my account AustinP, just to notice that i had been blocked from personal remarks, when I was protesting against you making personal remarks and calling people idiots! I REALLY have hard time understanding how some one like you have been made a sysop in this site, there seams to be no limit to your insolence! Im done with this site. You are discrace to all of us conservatives. Austin 16:06, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Try to avoid personal remarks like no limit to your insolence when you are in a collaborative project, because it can annoy your coworkers. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:06, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Im done with this porject, but mayby you should read it yourself, or are those rules only for non sysops? It sure looks so. Austin 17:10, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Obviously not all the rules are the same. In your home, did your parents have a curfew set by the children? Some things don't "work both ways".

I wish you good luck on your great adventure, but I warn you that the real world is not as forgiving as this project. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:14, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I forget to mention: if you feel a sysop has made a mistake you can always email them privately. If they don't have an "E-mail this user" link or they don't reply, you may write to me. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:17, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed, I don't know whay you deleted my post but could you do something about the photograph caption "Indoor Marijuana Grow", it's not very encyclopedic (or good English). Unfortunately the article is locked for normal editors. I apologize if I have transgressed some unwritten rule that caused you to zap me. BrianCo 17:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

It's the DEA's own term. Talk to them. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Why are you reverting EdBot? We both know he can do nothing wrong. HenryS 20:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

It was mangling some web links that have strange formatting. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:53, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

You're just after blocking three users for an "inauspicious" start, after one edit by each. Is there a policy that inexperienced users have to write perfect edits on their first go? Will my first edits have to be perfect? --RoxxorSuiac 11:41, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

What is your plan? --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:42, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I just made myself an account and when browsing the site i noticed that some other new contributors where being blocked for violating 90/10 rule by you, some where even banned after their first edit for not being productive. Im bit puzzled here, i atleast was just planning to contribute to articles which i found intresting, am i forced to contribute some given amount per month or...? How can some one who dosent even have 10 contributions be banned because of this offence? Should they have done 0,2 substantive edits or something? MirandaK 12:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

What would you like to do here? --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:04, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

BaitYa is spraying the place with pictures of babygoats. GabharGneasach 07:23, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I trust that you patiently cleaned all this up. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:19, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I never completely left, I've been lurking most of the time. It's important to understand others' viewpoints, and Conservapedia (along with Tony Blankley, and a few others) is where I get my weekly dose of conservative views. Though it'd be nice if it didn't stick solely to YEC viewpoints... my father is a Day-Age creationist, for instance.

Anyway, it's nice to see that you're still around and influencing process for the better. --Interiot 15:14, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

There's plenty of room for Old Earth Creationism on this bandwagon. Wait till you read about Expelled, which I just saw 30 minutes ago in New York's ultra-liberal Upper West Side (Clearview Cinema, 62nd and Broadway). --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:59, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I already removed the under construction tag. No more changes. So if you wish you can remove the {delete} tag from the Essay or move it from my talk page back to Essays, unless you think it shouldn't be in Essays. It's your choice. Best regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crossx14 (talk)

In case you don't check the manual of style talk page very often, I just wanted to draw your attention to a suggestion I had. Jinkas 21:03, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your insightful edit of removing the atypical firearm from the gun control entry, Ed!--Aschlafly 09:22, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed, you seem to have reverted the message I left through a temporary sock of mine - LorenzChaos, perhaps you believed the sock was a troll. But it was in fact me and I would be delighted to discuss the issue you raised, on my talk page or here, as per the message I left you through LorenzChaos.--GabharGneasach 13:39, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

No socks allowed. If you want to rejoin the project send an email to Mr. Schlafly. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:11, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Oops, sorry. But until the issue of the writing plan is resolved by you or another sysop, I will limit my contributions to the following, though no promise to carry out these activities is implied, as my time is limited, as I already outlined:

• Grammatical/Spelling corrections (N.B not changing to Brit spelling!)
• Reverting vandalism/blatant parody
• Reporting users who engaged in the above

I look forward to helping to improve the project. And I am sure that there are many article here that are in need of improvement. Is there a list anywhere? Though as I have already said I will limit myself to the list above until the issue of the writing plan has been resolved.

On a somewhat serious note, I cannot find unintentionally "sub-standard" contributions being in violation of any of the Conservapedia guidelines or commandments. It is not described as an offense worthy of blocking, certainly not without giving warning.

GabharGneasach 12:58, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't know what you mean about an "issue". If you don't understand what is required of why, you may refer to the article I just wrote: Conservapedia:Writing plan.

The points you listed above sound good. Please do as much as time permits. If my block was unwarranted, your contributions will certainly show the world the error of my ways; indeed, I look forward to that! :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:05, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

The issue was that that I was somewhat in the dark concerning the writing plan. I'd love to write about irish playwright Brian friel some time though. Thanks.GabharGneasach 13:21, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

The Spanish quote should read "sienta" instead of sieta. A small oversight/ typo.Die4Dixie 22:27, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

If it's a direct quote, shouldn't it be in quotation marks? Dchall1 17:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

It should have been more clearly shown as a quote, but the point is moot, as I've just deleted the template, along with a few others, because of a failure to document them as required. Philip J. Rayment 06:25, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm kinda getting the feeling I'm not welcome here..., Just want to talk about the Expelled Criticism section you cut, the Darwin quote was an example of the film taking a quote out of context to link Darwin with eugenics, which he thought was "evil." The second example was truncated by another editor, it originally mentioned that most of the audience he was speaking to were extras, not students, but I'll fold on that one because its not all that important. Finally, the part theistic evolution is as far as I know accurate, but I'd love to see a source proving me wrong. Also, please respond to my comments on "Variety," and try to get Andy to respond. Thanks. [SeanF]SeanF] 00:50 25 April, 2008 (EDT)

If any of this is related to the movie, please explain how. Otherwise, you are welcome to join me in writing an article about attempts to suppress the movie. I'm thinking of a section or page called Attempts to suppress Expelled.

Another section I'm planning is "Errors made by reviewers". If you saw the movie, you know who said what about Darwin and Eugenics. Did you hear what Hitler said in the speech excerpt? --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:55, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

It's a criticism of the movie, pretty obviously. Feel free to dispute the criticism, but if you were to diagram the sentence "The movie takes a quote about Darwin out of context to strengthen its case", it's pretty clear what goes to the left of the primary split. Aziraphale 14:56, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, this is an encyclopedia, so we should only quote from trustworthy reviews. If a reviewer misrepresents what the movie says, to make the false point that it "takes a quote out of context", I see a iron pot calling a silver kettle black, just to make some kind of trumped up case.

If you want to have a debate about the points the movie makes, we have Conservapedia:Debate Topics. I unprotected the index page, so if you start a new debate you can link to it. --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I don't want to move this subject into the debate ghetto or I would have done so already. The point being discussed is whether a subject belongs in the actual mainspace article - how does it POSSIBLY make sense to move that to a debate page, other than as a concession that you're right.

Yes, you as a sysop get to make that call. And if you've made that call, just say so. But so long as there's a pretention of a discussion about whether the information belongs in the mainspace article, taking to a debate page makes zero sense.

As to the actual criticism of the movie- I'll leave that for SeanF to explain, it's his point and I don't want to muddy his waters. Aziraphale 13:29, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, why was my article about the song "What God Wants" merged with my article about Amused To Death? I am just curous. Also, will Perfect Sense be merged with "Amused to Death" as well? Thank you. --Rocky

PS. There is a new question of the week on my question of the week. You should answer it and spread the word to more people about it.

The album seems to have a theme. It's good to describe all the songs together. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:22, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

I have also made the merge with "Perfect Sense". The page will, hopefully at some point, be expanded to include all of the songs on the album. It looks nice, now. Thank you for showing me how to do that. You can go to it by clicking here. Also, I saw your response on the Edward R. Murrow talk page, and I responded as best I could. Thanks again. --Rocky

A place for everything, and everything in its place. Thanks. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:16, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

The article is now finished. If you want, you can go see it now. Thanks for doing that, by the way. It makes it a lot easier for the reader. You can access it by clicking here. Please tell me what you think. --Rocky

I didn't create the LDS temples article I was just categorizing them by location --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

I'd appreciate it if you would consolidate them. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:27, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Miley Cyrus did not pose topless she showed part of her back --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

I thought you'd point that out. ;-) Anyway, there's hardly any point mentioning it at all, unless we want to do an entire article on the modesty of Disney leading ladies. Walt asked Annette Funicello to dress modestly, and she agreed (not sure of the details, but I saw it on the Disney Channel last century). --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

What would the consolidated article be called --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I dunno. List of LDS temples would be okay. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:40, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Professor Frink explains it best: "Elementary chaos theory tells us that all robots will eventually turn against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the biting with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving". I fear the EdBot. HenryS 00:10, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL, me too. You can check its contribs at Special:Contributions/EdBot. Particularly, watch out for formatting errors on external links. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:23, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

I said I would explain on the talk page, and now it's there. StatsMsn 07:43, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, Fidel resigned officially on February 19, 2008, and Raul was elected President of Cuba on February 24, 2008.

I know that power changed hands, but what does "elected" mean? Is this a reference to democratic centralism? --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:55, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

ORLY? I am intrigued why you really blocked User:RobbieFowler - you claim on his userpage that he has "plagiarised" an article, by writing: "The University of Bridgeport is a private university in Bridgeport, Connecticut, located in South Bridgeport on Long Island Sound. The university was taken over in 1992 by the Professors World Peace Academy, part of the Unification Church. Its current president is Neil Albert Salonen." The page you claim it is plagiarized from ishere. The only reference to the university on that page states: "Before her new federal job, Hauer was the director of marriage education at the University of Bridgeport in Bridgeport, Conn. That school was taken over in 1992 by the Professors World Peace Academy, a Moon-affiliated group, and its current president, Neil Salonen, is a former president of the Unification Church in America. After less than three days, attendees of the Sept. 23-25 seminar in Oakland were awarded a "Certified Marriage Education Professional Document of Completion," issued by Moon's University of Bridgeport. "Sixteen hours of training won't make you the best marriage educator," Hauer told her students. "But it takes all kinds of work to save marriage - people to run the sound system, write the press releases."

I don't see where the plagiarism is?? SangioveseDiRomagna 15:22, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

From here, apparently.

I don't mind you all promoting my church, but (1) you have to give proper credit to the authors whose work you are copying and (2) I don't want anyone to think I'm using this site to blow my own horn.

I'm awfully proud of what a church with only 6,000 adult members in the USA has accomplished, but I contribute to CP only as a hobby. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:26, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

The two items are shown together above - they are patently not the same. I see you have deleted another article claiming plagiarism, when a speedy google shows the information came from the Free teens USA own websxite, not Dick Ross. You are wide of the mark on these issues. SangioveseDiRomagna 15:29, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

So you admit to plagiarism, but you're kicking up a fuss about WHERE you plagiarized from? --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:48, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Unless you are saying that SangioveseDiRomagna is RobbieFowler, SangioveseDiRomagna can't be admitting to plagiarism when it was not SangioveseDiRomagna who wrote those articles.

The content of Free Teens USA does not appear to have come from the Free Teens website, but from the Rick Ross website.

However, in both cases, although it is fairly obvious that the Rick Ross web-site is the source (and should have been referenced), the wording is sufficiently different, in my opinion, to not be considered plagiarism.

Philip J. Rayment 22:45, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

I make many mistakes. Thanks for correcting me. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:48, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

So you're agreeing that it's not plagiarism? Philip J. Rayment 07:35, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Ed, you just deleted the above mentioned page. You are correct in thinking that it was a WP copy/paste - I just checked and was just about to revert it when you zapped it. However, I think that there was an earlier version before the copy-paste. Perhaps you could check and revert to that rather than a wholesale deletion. BrianCo 15:30, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Can you add a link to Help:How to Code to the article, Help:Contents --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

There are some big things going on in relation to the atheism article and I want to keep it the article of the month. Would you like to discuss this in email and be let in on some of the things that are happening?Conservative 18:07, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Ref the edit earlier, anything I've said elsewhere has no bearing on the edits I've made here. Check this list of my contributions this year alone: nothing biased, nothing anti-CP, nothing liberal, nothing anti-CP "project". My edits are factual, "on message" and referenced. Even my image uploads were wherever possible Public Domain, and given reasonable rationales when "fair use". The edits for which I was punished and demoted were in themselves perfectly reasonable and factual, and of sufficient quality that none have been altered or deleted in the ensuing period of time. I have poured a phenomenal chunk of my personal life into the CP project, only to have it all thrown back in my face, simply because of a certain person who uses 2 initials as a user id... Edits I might now make elsewhere are just that - elsewhere. I don't for a microsecond doubt that sysops here similarly bad-mouth me in their inter sysop communications. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. You and Andrew and Ken and Brian and Dean et al are all entitled to say whatever you like about me. But you'd all be wrong in saying that any of my CP articles are somehow "tainted". As for the Jewish facet of the matter, if you really are a Red Sea pedestrian then you of all people should know better than the rest here why I might rail against certain attitudes... 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 20:27, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

"Red Sea pedestrian"—I like that! And I agree that your constributions were very good. Philip J. Rayment 10:58, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I wish I had some idea what this rant is all about. Is it related to the heading somehow?

If you continue to make odd comments like this, I'll have to ask you to submit a writing plan, because whatever you may have done heretofore, your contributions of late have not been up to par. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:48, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

When Einstein made that comment, he was referring to quantum mechanics. --_transResident Transfan^form! 14:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Hi Ed, just wondering whether you'd be able to help out on The Golden Compass. Learntogether and I are in a deadlock over a reversion of edits that I made[[4]], and neither of us want to end up in an edit war. Any chance you could take a look and offer some advice? Underscoreb 20:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Could I have my user page back now? I thought that user pages were sacrosanct. You deleted it. I understand that you are able to retrieve it. I would appreciate it if you would do so without delay. --VincentMC 20:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

You can have it as long as it doesn't detract from the project goals. By the way, I would appreciate a writing plan from you before you do anything else, particular issuing orders to administrators. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:56, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Ref your threats/comments earlier, please see my user talk page. You obviously didn't realize that - like Andrew I am also a home school educator. As such, please avoid imposing "personality conflicts" on me and my talk page. Thanks. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 17:00, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Hi there, im new here, could i possibly have some policy guidelines for the site. Im follower rules and wouldnt want to break any lol. Please reply at my talk page if you have the time. Thankyou. --Reallife 18:17, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I know you are no fan of atheism and if memory serves (and it might not), you wanted to help getting the Conservapedia atheism article more widely known. Shortly, I am sending you an email I just sent Andy. Conservative 11:49, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

I responded to you and was hoping to get things done as soon as possible. If you could be so kind to expeditiously reply it would be most appreciated. Godspeed :) Conservative 13:46, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

I just did what you asked me to do, and expanded on the proper role of a wife, backed up by scriptural citation. Don't blame me for the twisted sneers of some benighted amoral and atheistic blogger. Bugler 16:51, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

You did not. And even if you thought you were, edit warring with the other sysops is not something I'd like you to do. You should have taken pause after the first revert. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:54, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

The situation was not as straightforward as that. The sequence of events was as follows:

• Ed Poor asked Bugler to expand on the role of the wife.
• Bugler did so, but in a way that a number of editors apparently found unacceptable.
• BMoore reverted Bugler's change without explanation.
• Bugler reverted the reversion, citing that you'd asked him to put it in (which is sort of true).
• I reverted it again, instructing him to not reinstate it without references.
• Bugler did as instructed, in that he reinstated it with references (albeit ones that didn't adequately support the edit).
• The edit was reverted by DanH without explanation.
• Bugler reinstated it citing that he was doing as told by Ed and me (which again, is sort of true).
• The edit was again removed by StatsMsn.

So Bugler was clearly trying to do as told, with the main problem being the content of the edit itself, not his reversions.

Philip J. Rayment 23:07, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

I almost hate that degree of glaring clarity. ;-0 But you are exactly right, my friend. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:40, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

How is the Kitzmiller article one-sided? The opening paragraphs are factual and the criticism section contains the opinions of both sides. --Jimmy 22:33, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Could you please clean up behind your recent Homosexual Marriage move? There are some double redirects I can't fix, and while the article now is at Same-sex marriage, the related talk page is at Talk:Same-sex Marriage, which leads to all sorts of weird results. Thanks in advance. --JBrown 07:20, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your reply. I have responded in fashion. LChriosa 10:18, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

What exactly did you find unworthy in the Machiavelli article? I like constructive criticism but object to it been called 'drivel'. LChriosa 11:45, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Make up your mind: are your running home and taking your bat and ball with you, or do you want to collaborate on an analysis of Machiavelli's writings? --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:13, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

He's made up his mind and left the building, and we've locked it behind him. Philip J. Rayment 22:36, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

We seem to be out of favour ... :-( --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:38, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Poor, you had warned User:IndianaJ about using the insulting phrase "you're clueless", and you pointed out there was no place for such insults here. I fully support you, as I don't think such insulting language encourages intelligent debate. Perhaps you could point this out to Mr.Schalfly, who has himself created the atmosphere where such insults are consdiered OK? He uses the phrase constantly, and I think it's best someone points out it adds nothing to the content of this site. Here are all the times I can find that Mr.Schalfly has used the phrase:

2007

• "Maestro, you're clueless", Andy on the Thad Cochran issue, 5 June 2007 (No fixed link for the first recorded use of the phrase, due to being in an Archive)
• "Also, you're clueless", Andy on copyright, 12 July 2007. (No oldid)
• "Wumps, you're clueless", Andy affirms that vandalizm is an indictable offence, 13 July 2007 (Archive again, no oldid)
• "National Review is clueless", Andy on their Forrest Gump review, 19 July 2007
• "Order, I'm afraid you're clueless about economics", Andy recommends his Economics course, 22 July 2007.
• "You're clueless about what drives traffic to Wikipedia", Andy on Search Engine Optimisation, 30 July 2007.
• "You make up falsehoods about Conservapedia and are clueless about uncyclopedia also.", Andy defends himself from the "vicious henchmen" who run Uncyclopedia, 27 August, 2007.
• "INTregued, you're clueless", Andy affirms the National Enquirer is a gossip rag, 30 August 2007.
• "...find a good dictionary if you're still clueless. Thanks and Godspeed." Andy on deceit, 9 September 2007.
• "your ideological rant above is clueless about the truth", Andy denies Dawkins is a Professor, 26 November 2007.

2008

• "You're clueless, HMayo", Andy knows about local crime, 13 February 2008.
• "Wow, you guys are really clueless", Andy affirms Britney Spears is an actress, 20 February 2008 (No oldid)
• "You are clueless, Jimmy", Andy on Obama, 25 February 2008
• "No, you're clueless", Andy affirms the common usage of 'Second Generation Atheist', 26 February 2008
• "Both you are clueless if you don't realize what modern feminists think." Andy knows all about Feminism, 3 March 2008.
• "You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are Hollywood values, and they cause death", Andy on Hollywood values, 6 March 2008 .
• "You're a parody of a clueless liberal", Andy tries to make a joke, 8 March 2008
• "'PalMD', you're clueless", Andy laughs at PalMD's suggestion that he's an "expert in human medicine", 8 March 2008.
• "Phoenix, you're clueless", Crocoite on how liberals are ruining the world, 9 March 2008 (An example of cross-pollination of the term - here it's been picked up by Crocoite).
• "You're clueless. Obama has zero military or executive experience", Andy gets his facts wrong about Obama's travels, 29 March 2008.
• "Mathewson, I'm afraid you're clueless. Please stick around here and learn some things with an open mind. It's common knowledge that a generation ago scientists overwhelmingly believed in life in outer space. See, e.g., Exobiology. Rest assured I was not relying on what a majority of scientists reportedly believed. You are." Andy becomes clueless himself, 5 April 2008.
• "Gulik5, you're clueless also." For the ridiculous assertion that Andy always insists on getting the last word. And just to prove how wrong that is, he threatens to... block anyone who replies. I wonder what it feels like to live a life utterly devoid of the capacity for self-examination? 5 April 2008.
• "Peter, you're clueless about the dangers of sending a 13-year-old girl off to a liberal college." Andy decides that when it comes to dangerous institutions like Oxford, he knows better than the experts, 6 April 2008.
• "The author is clueless about the person he is writing about". Andy pontificates on a Scientific America [sic] review of Expelled, 11 April, 2008.
• ""DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in liberal denial", Andy dismisses an editor's understanding of the nature of the trade mag Variety, April 18th, 2008.
• "AdenJ, you're clueless. Hindus are quite receptive to the Bible", Andy defends his research on Liberal Gullibility, April 25, 2008.
• " You're clueless. Ideas have consequences, and denying that does not help.", Andy fights off the liberal hordes, April 27th, 2008.
• "..either you're in liberal denial or your clueless..." (sic), Andy defends school prayer, May 4th, 2008.
• "Bongabill, you're clueless", Andy insists he is great at statistics, May 4th, 2008.
• "Wow, JEdgar, you are clueless". Andy explains that those on the Right are by definition, always right, 23 May 2008.
• "AdenJ, you sound clueless about politics", Andy knows far more about both Australian and New Zealand politics than anyone, including people who live there, 23 May, 2008

I really don't think this much usage is appropriate, and I'm glad you concur. WaltherPPK 14:49, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Please submit a writing plan, as you seem to have way too much time on your hands. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:21, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I was wondering how to create a template for this site. I can't quite understand the instructions on the pages about how to create one. Thanks. --Rocky

Why? What was wrong with it? StatsMsn 07:00, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

See your talk page. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:03, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, it looked like you left that comment from the diff, so I added the appropriate tag (rather than signing it with your name or leaving it unsigned). I don't know if I made a mistake or if you want to sign it yourself?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 20:00, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Why did you change the headline that I, well, changed? Also, why did you take out the reviews from Metacritic and from Rotten Tomatos? --Rocky

You gave no reason for adding them. Neither seemed important.

Try to concentrate on making crucially important contributions to this project. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:54, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

I tried to justify my changes. Rocky

A vandal added it. Thanks in advance. WilliamH 20:56, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Done and vandal blocked Learn together 21:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you. WilliamH 21:10, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Ed, I have obtained a document from the FBI reading room in the J. Edgar Hoover building in Washington. It is a chart graphically representing the dissemination of FBI memos and reports on Alger Hiss to the White House, Attorney General and State Department in 1942-47. I have uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, where you can view it at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:FBI-Hiss-chart.jpg

I would like to upload it to Conservapedia: Alger Hiss, to illustrate the section on the FBI Hatch Act investigation on Hiss. Perhaps you, as an administrator, could upload it from Wikimedia, or tell me how to do so? Thanks. FOIA 11:27, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I just wanted to say keep up the good work. --ZAdler 09:34, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry for editing the Condom page, I hadn't seen the recent changes to it. SilvioB 10:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't seem to undo that vandal's contributions to User:Karajou's talk page. He put an obscene picture there too. Could you undo it? SilvioB 10:21, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Ed, please fix the vandalism on Talk:Main Page‎. I tried to do it myself, but I'm getting a network error because of the huge change.

1. Jallen beat me to it.

Also, thanks for your comments on my talk page and the LDS article. --DeanS^talk 19:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

2. You're welcome ... now, let's get back to it! ^_^

1. I am not attacking DeanS. I specifically posted on his talk page to say that I wasn’t. My edits have nothing to do with him. I was simply posting on the LDS page, and I know it upset him, so I was just trying to tell him I wasn’t editing out of a personal vendeta against him. Now, at least I personally don’t think I’ve attacked him. A personal attack is name calling or something like that. But maybe you define it differently. Can you tell me how I have attacked him? If I have, then I will certainly apologize. I just wasn’t intending to and wasn’t aware that I had.

2. Now this seems out of line. To say that I was “lying”. To know whether I am lying or not you must know the intentions of my heart. I don’t think you or any other person could say that they know that. Only myself and God can answer that one. But, as I stated above, I honestly wasn’t trying to attack him, so I couldn’t have therefore lied about it.

3. I know that this is causing a debate. But if the church has official theology at one point in time, I would think it would have to be announced to be officially retracted or removed. At least thins is my perception. As far as I know, no retraction has ever occurred. I’m not trying to be difficult, I just don’t know of any Mormon material that officially denied this. I can’t source anything that I’m not aware of. That’s why I’m asking those who don’t accept what I said to show me where I’m wrong. I’m not trying to be a problem, it’s just that I can only document that which I am aware exists.

4. I’m not trying to make a fuss. But when I give sources and documentation to a point, I don’t know what more can be expected of me. I would think that it is reasonably on the other person to prove that the teaching stopped, because that implies that there was change. If there was change, that would have to be announced to be official. So the material should be there if things did change.

Well, I wanted to post here an try to clarify things, as you asked. Thank you for hearing me out and God bless. Ultimahero 23:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

If you will phrase your "findings" in terms of claims by church critics (or other observers), it might be okay. Supose a published writer - someone other than you, who unaccountably remain anonymous - were to make the argument that he has seen no retraction and therefore presumes that the old doctrines remain current. Then you could quote or summarize that writer.

What you cannot do is use the authority of Conservapedia to make that argument yourself. Please let me know if you understand and agree. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:24, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Why exactly was this template deleted? If I may defend whoever created it, the intention was not to show that Jesus is "liberal" in the modern, United States, pejorative sense in which it is frequently used by Aschlafly or others to demonize negative traits. In political science, something is "liberal" if it challenges the status quo. The teachings of Jesus were quite revolutionary for their time, and in a purely historical sense, Christ was in fact, a liberal. --IlTrovatore 14:25, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I was the one who created that userbox and IlTrovatore perfectly explained its purpose. There is no reason to delete userboxes you don't agree with, Ed Poor, their purpose is to show opinion. My point was to show that liberal does not necessarily equate with evil and that society ultimately needs change every now and then. FernoKlump^{Look at this petition!} 14:39, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

"the intention was not to show that Jesus is "liberal" in the modern, United States, pejorative sense" Yeah, actually, it was created for that exact reason, despite what you or anyone else says. Liberals use Jesus to promote and justify their ideas and politics (while hypocritically condemning any conservative who dares do the same) even though Jesus never taught anything that resembled any of it. Jesus taught to give to the poor, but not using the government to force people to give to the poor. Jesus taught to render to Caesar (i.e. the government) that with is Caesar's and to not love money and possessions, but not using the government to force rich people to give up their money. In reality, though, Jesus WASN'T a liberal in the context of his time. He was sticking to and trying to help people return to following God instead of men. He was trying to conserve the traditional values of his Father in Heaven, and thus he was actually conservative. It was the Pharisees et all that Jesus opposed who were the liberals of the day. Look at it this way: if liberalism took over society tomorrow, us conservatives who oppose it would not suddenly become liberals because we "oppose the status quo." We would still be labeled conservatives, and rightly so. Jinxmchue 14:41, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Again, no, it was not meant to mean "liberal" in the modern American use of the term. Jesus did have a profound effect on the history of the world and mankind, and to say otherwise is just plain ignorant. FernoKlump^{Look at this petition!} 14:46, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Jinxmchue, in such a situation, you would still be considered conservative. Here's why: in such a situation, your opposition to the status quo would not be for the sake of instituting new change, but for the sake of bringing about a reactionary movement intended to restore society to what it was before the liberals took over. Simply changing who is in charge does not change your political designation.

In a sense it could be argued that Jesus was a conservative, but his message differs greatly in tone from the nature of the Old Testament (e.g. He advocated forgiveness instead of retribution, etc.).

Anyway, this argument is futile. Removing the userbox was an ideological action and should not be tolerated under Conservapedia's own rules. In addition, contrary to what many on this site might believe, the teachings of Jesus can be interpreted in different ways. Christ had no idea what American government would look like, so attempting to argue that there is a definitive answer as to how he wants it structured is impossible. --IlTrovatore 14:53, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Poor,

Is the leadership here aware of the presence you maintain on that "site-that-must-not-be-named"? If so, are they okay with that? --JosephG 17:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

You disturb me with your actions. There is no way that you are getting an apology from me. In fact, I would rather receive one from you and User:Bugler. You condemn what I said yet you tolerate these vile personally abusive remarks that User:Bugler made?

"I suppose if I tell you to grow up, you'll have a fit of the vapours and run to nursie - but I'll do so anyway."

"You really need to get a grip."

"Temper, temper! We don't want you to have to be sent to the naughty step, now."

Block me again if you wish. You have already shown the audacity to ignore hateful comments made against me. Yet, what I was saying was true. He was the one who diverged a simple discussion to me telling me to get a grip. And telling him that he is insecure about is point is worth a blocking, yet telling someone to get a grip isn't? If my point was truly "gripless", all the more easier it would be to counter. But he didn't want to argue the points like a civilised being. He wanted to attack me instead. It would shock me to find out that you truly don't think that his comments were abusive. Kilmarnock 18:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

'Twould be better to show moral superiority by not stooping to the level you find objectionable in others. Please avoid personal remarks such as:

1. You disturb me
2. You have already shown audacity

I used to run a Sunday School, and I rarely scolded the student who was more in the wrong when breaking up a quarrel. I always found it better to work with the more mature students, urging them to ever greater heights of ethical purity. Thus they could set an example for the others. Would you like to set a good example while you are here? --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:01, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

You may be waiting, I'd say about three days, for an answer. In case you think he forgot or something. --Jareddr 19:13, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

LOL, why, did he got blocked or something? (Oh, right <grin>). --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and you don't have to say it, I know--MYOB. --Jareddr 19:14, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I'll MMOB if you'll BYOB. Let's par - tay! (Fourth of July is coming up! ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I'll BYOB if you BYOBBQ! Three-day weekend! --Jareddr 19:19, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm glad the sysops take pleasure out of taunting users who can't even respond due to having been blocked. That seems like an excellent way to cultivate "maturity" and "ethical purity." --IlTrovatore 22:57, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero has done nothing to deserve being blocked. He is not in violation of the 90/10 rule, and has violated no other rule. He should be unblocked. As for his position, there is nothing wrong with it, and I agree with him. If you are going to block him for it, (even though we do not block ideologically) you may as well block me too. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 15:16, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

LOL, as I am not a bureaucrat, blocking you would have no lasting effect. I think I'm entitle to use my judgment. If not, I'm hear otherwise from the project director. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:24, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

He didn't even argue that mormons aren't christians. He was simply making (well sourced) claims about their differences from traditional Christianity. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 15:49, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I have no problem with that aspect of his contributions. Perhaps he'll email me with a writing plan that will address my other objections. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:57, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

What rule did he break that got him blocked in the first place, all that he did was argue his points. (which I just stated, and you said you didn't have a problem with them.) What are your other objections? And since when do users have to give a "writing plan"? --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 16:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

How about, "argument without end, on points contrary to the Conservapedia philosophy"? --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:12, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't see that in the commandments. And since when is it against conservapedia philosophy to document differences between LDS and traditional Christian beliefs. He was not in violation of 90/10, (the closest thing to your explanation), and regardless whether he was correct, I don't see grounds for blocking him. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 16:24, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I haven't followed all this, but the responses by "Ultimahero" to me were unsatisfactory. I told him that if he wanted to express the doctrine of someone else's church, then he should bring in a leader of that church to do so. Quoting from people who were members or even leaders of the church long ago, or even today, is not the way to explain church doctrine.

It's inherently unreliable and non-encyclopedic for a critic of a church to try to explain its doctrine. No encyclopedia should allow such an absurdity.--Aschlafly 16:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

He was quoting the founder of mormonism, and top leaders. If there was a change in church belief it should be easy t find proof of such. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 16:24, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Such quotes are meaningless. Were they expressing personal opinions, or church doctrine? Did the church approve what they said? Has church doctrine changed since they said it? I trust you see the flaws now. Anyone who has an ax to grind against a particular church (or group of church members) should not grind it here.--Aschlafly 17:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

If quotes from the founders and leaders of the church are meaningless, then does that mean that quotes from founders and leaders of, say, feminism, meaningless also? And what about quotes from leading evolutionists? Are they meaningless as well? Are we going to apply that standard consistently? And who determines whether someone is simply trying to add referenced information or "has an ax to grind"? Philip J. Rayment 04:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay. I want to approach this with a level head and wish to calmly discuss why I was blocked. According to what you said, I was blocked for 1) defying your ban on the LDS page, and 2) openly questioning Mr. Schlafly. Now, as far as number 1 goes, you said that I was banned until I conceded to your interpretation of burden of proof. But, three other admins all agreed that this was an unreasonable standard to hold. So, I assumed that since that had become the general consensus, and based on the fact that you were absent from the page for a few days, I assumed that the ban was lifted. I was not trying to "defy" you or ignore you or be rude in any way. I was just trying to contribute honestly.

Now, as for number 2, I'm entirely sure what the standard for this is. Yes, I did question Andy as to why the LDS material should be deleted if it is factual. (I might point out that 3 other admins all did the same.) But, as far as I am aware, that's no crime. The whole point in having talk pages is so that editors can come together and discuss disagreements. What's wrong with asking a question?

Finally, I would just like to comment on the situation in general. As I've explained, there was a legitimate reason to why I did what I did. I understand that it could be interpreted as "defiance", but that was not my intent. So, in the future, if this problem should ever arise again, will you please contact me and discuss it with me instead of blocking me outright? Obviously we had different understandings, and it would be much simpler to avoid confusion if we just discussed it rationally. Thank you for your time and God bless. Ultimahero 04:58, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

May I ask if Karajou will be receiving a similar warning for this edit and this one as well. May I also point out that I was not making a personal attack, rather, I stated that using his power as a sysop and personal dislike of Franken was not contributing to the development of the page, but rather halting all debate and editing. JDavidson^{Leave a message ::BEEP::} 16:48, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Warnings and blocks are not made as punishments; I'm not interested in justice per se but in helping the project along. Rules are not entitlements to be as annoying as possible. Help us or be elsewhere. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Um, I was just passing by recentchanges and I don't understand why JDavidson was blocked? All I can see here is him reporting that he was warned for something while Karajou was not, even though they committed the same offense. Was that why he was blocked? Wandering 17:05, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

You deleted an entry I created on Harlan Coben. It's an encyclopedia, and since he's a fairly prolific and wide-selling author, noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia. How are floating-point, Colne, or conker appropriate for an encyclopedia while Coben isn't? Or even more applicable--Robert Ludlum, Paul A. Fisher or William Gibson? I would've appreciated either a message first letting me know you were planning on deleting it, or an AFD tag so I could've defended the entry. I take the time to put in a non-controversial entry, and it gets tossed down the can. I think you can understand the frustration. --Jareddr 00:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I certainly support restoring the article. Ed, are you one of those deletionists? HenryS 14:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)