aschlafy@aol.com, conservapedia@zoho.com and cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com. I didn't get any reply (is 1-2 days a ''reasonable amount of time'' to wait? I thinks so...) to my short email which stated: ''I understand that my criticisms of CBP and the World History Lectures are quite unwelcome, but they are hardly trolling! I'd appreciate if you lift my block.''::*So I decided to create a new account to appeal the block, hoping that the advice against this action is as obsolete as other sections of the ''editor's guide''.[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:56, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO):::August, I think you should start a career in sales. You certainly have the persistence to be a good salesman. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:47, 26 October 2011 (EDT)Ed Poor, the block of AugustO is now more than a week old. I tried to reach you via various channels - could you please lift the block as the stated reason ("trolling") doesn't apply? [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:09, 31 October 2011 (EDT):Please get a [[writing plan]] from him and get it to me, and I'll consider it. Meanwhile, any sysop is free to unblock him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:01, 31 October 2011 (EDT)::Is that any official Sysop, or anyone with Block rights? I'd be happy to unblock Mr O so that he can post his writing plan.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:25, 1 November 2011 (EDT):::On second thoughts, perhaps I'll just go ahead. Please reverse my action if I'm overstepping the mark.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:33, 1 November 2011 (EDT)*I read the article on the [[writing plan]], and I'll try to provide you with one. This would be easier if a ''sample plan'' were provided. But nonetheless, here it is:Mainly I'm interested in the CBP. Mind you, I'm not ''Junker Jörg'', I'm not capable to create a translation on my own which stands for hundreds of years. But I think that translating the Bible in a group, and extensively discussing your work is a marvelous way to get a greater insight into the ''Book of books''. While doing so, I try to dig into what Conservative calls the ''ANE culture'', as you can see [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], where I try to shed light on timekeeping during the Roman empire.When I came here, I thought that there would be a group of likewise interested individuals, but at the moment there seems to be only one other editor with similar interests.As my approach to the CBP generates quite a few edits on talk-pages, I balance these with edits to articles. These tend to by connected somehow with my namesakes (August of Saxony, Ernest August of Hanover), the history - or just happen on pages where I read something which puzzled me :-)[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)It would be a great idea to merge the articles. In fact, if you were interested in expanding the article, I might be interested in helping.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:28, 29 October 2011 (EDT):Yes, please help me organize this. We should give prominence to conservative views, but let's steer away from censoring liberal views. It would be nice if liberals could see '''why''' conservatives believe differently. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:43, 29 October 2011 (EDT)::OK!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:48, 29 October 2011 (EDT)::I merged the articles and added a bit on abortion and political ideology. How is it?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:53, 31 October 2011 (EDT)perhaps it should be bed bugs (plural), and now when i make an edit and it goes thru, if i try to make another one i get "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it" but no one has. Going back to page and trying anew results in the same. 3.1: longetivity should be longevity. Jesus is Lord, thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 07:58, 5 November 2011 (EDT)== Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here ==Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback [http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Panel_members.2C_please_give_your_feedback_below HERE]Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:05, 16 November 2011 (EST):I have explained my ideas in private email to you and Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)There are a few messages to you here: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Air_superiority [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:14, 26 May 2012 (EDT)Thanks for picking up some of my "wiki litter" that I left behind (redirects to non-existent pages). I will try to be more diligent as far as not littering in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT):You're welcome. And don't bother yourself: it's better for you to focus your time on building the wiki, while less talented contributors like myself do the routine housekeeping. :If I had your writing skill, I'd be making whole article like you do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:34, 12 June 2012 (EDT)== A message to you from Cipe ==Could you perform the edit I described [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=992864#Edit_request here, on very bottom of the page]? I asked Aschlafly but he's probably busy now.Best [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 15:33, 13 July 2012 (EDT)::I know the basics of Wiki coding and not the advanced level coding. I would ask someone else. Try Ed Poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:32, 13 July 2012 (EDT):::Unfortunately, I cannot edit Ed's talk page. Could you suggest someone different? Or message him?:::The change is rather small and requires only copy-and-paste. More directly: you can copy contents of this: [[User:Cipe/MW_fix]] to: [[MediaWiki:Revision-info]]. Even if my suggestion is wrong, it can be reverted, so there is no danger. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 16:41, 13 July 2012 (EDT)Okay, I did it. But where can I see the results? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:53, 13 July 2012 (EDT)Thank you very much. You'll see it when checking older revision. Here is an example: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546].I noticed that MediaWiki has a different message when you're checking current revision. I'll prepare fix in a moment. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 17:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT):The message seems to have logged me out. I think it needs fixing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 13 July 2012 (EDT)::I also got logged out, but only once. I can consistently see the new message now. Perhaps the software logs out when a edit to MediaWiki is made. Could you please copy [[User:Cipe/MW fix 2]] to [[MediaWiki:Revision-info-current]]? I promise it's the last change :) It is shown for a permalink to current revision. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:08, 13 July 2012 (EDT):::I don't think that's it. I think you need to put the '''www.''' in front of '''www.conservapedia.com''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:09, 13 July 2012 (EDT)::::It seems to work. I can see the messages: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546 for past revisions] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=992065 for current revision]. Thanks for changing. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)== Thank you for unlocking your talk page ==I really appreciate being able to get in contact with you directly when the circumstances arise. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:39, 13 July 2012 (EDT)Now he can try to justify what he said about the article. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:29, 14 July 2012 (EDT)== File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg ==Do you think it would be appropriate to use this image in the [[Current TV]] article? It's already in Gore's main article, so why not include it in the article about his obscure TV network on channel 9800 on my TV? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)Hey, I just wanted to apologise for the comments I made related to you, they were impolite and unnecessary. I don't have anything against you or anything, I just posted something that I thought was relevent without thinking how it would be taken by anyone other than myself, as it happened they were rude and quite personal. I acknowledge that I behaved quite badly, and in future I will try to avoid giving you, or others, offense. So..... virtual handshake?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 06:18, 18 July 2012 (EDT):Oh, don't be so dramatic. Just comment on the articles and issues of the day, and forget about personalities. That's how this project's supposed to run. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 18 July 2012 (EDT)::lol. Nah it's difficult to tell over the internet how people are reacting, so for all I knew you could have been quite insulted or something, and I had to make sure that I was being very clear. Anyway, cool[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 01:03, 19 July 2012 (EDT):::I'm not sure you get it: We don't want personal remarks on this wiki, clear or not. You need to be clear only about one thing: what you intend to write about an article topic. You must not comment on other users in any way. Is '''that''' clear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 20 July 2012 (EDT)As someone who has been the subject of personal comments (see [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987753&oldid=987715], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987827&oldid=987777], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987956&oldid=987955], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=990739&oldid=990566]), I would like to share my opinion on Conservapedia's policy on personal attacks.I think it is very appropriate to make '''relevant''' comments on editing and other wiki behavior to determine what the best practices are with regards to editing and other actions and, if necessary, to instruct users who may not know better about such practices. For example, I have informed two administrators about redacting the automatically-generated deletion log entry to remove sensitive material. I have also asked one administrator to include source information in that user's uploaded images, requests with which this user has complied. Likewise, if someone has a habit of posting comments on talk pages without signing them, it is appropriate to inform them of how to sign posts. Further, if someone is about to violate 90/10, a warning is definitely appropriate. None of these have to do with the real-life '''personality''' that these editors, many of whom are brothers and sisters in Christ, have; these comments focus on on-wiki '''behavior'''.Further, I think that if someone is going to make a statement regarding real-life facts or Conservapedia's commandments, policies, and best practices, it is appropriate to debate this statement '''without going into personality details'''. Such debate may very well include Socratic or rhetorical questioning as a argumentative device.Of course, Mr. Schlafly is the owner of the site, so he has the final say in this, but I'm sure he would agree with what I have written. Although attacks on another editor's real-life personality should generally be removed, I do not see the need to remove good-faith debate and discussion over user '''behavior''' at Conservapedia.Thank you for reading this. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:36, 21 July 2012 (EDT):Yeah, thanks, Greg. If I err on the side of "absolutely nothing about the person" to an absurd point, please continue to help me out. I'm mainly opposed to comments like, "You're a jerk" or "I don't have to follow the rules." :Nothing wrong with '''friendly''' personal comments, like, "Thanks for pointing out that a rigid, absolutist enforcement of the rules may not be wise." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 22 July 2012 (EDT)I saw your Arbcom case over at Wikipedia just today looking through for cases of bias there. :) Wikipedia's - nuts, huh? Lol. I ran into the Obama bias team over there in Scjessey, Wikidemon, and company, back in late 2009. It's become so hopelessly biased by now you've just got to laugh. They know they're keeping all controversy out of the Obama page and how biased they are, and don't care. Well, all my facts are at Conservapedia's services now. :) Anyway, just saying it's nice to see another ex-Wikipedian here I guess - hope we get some more! :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 01:15, 22 July 2012 (EDT)'User names based on your real name or initials are '''preferred'''' does not state that you will be blocked. [[User:Conservative|Also]].--[[User:Wishnaka|Wishnaka]] 19:51, 25 August 2012 (EDT)*Inappropriate user name. It has been a general principle that one's user name be "based on one's real first name and last initial", though there are a number of reasons why that is not always practical. The point is that we don't like the kind of foolish "handles" that are often used in various blogs and social web sites. If you run afoul of this by accident, you will be asked to create a new account, and doing so will not be considered sockpuppetry. Of course, some user names are essentially just vandalism, and are treated that way.If you don't object, I suggest shortening his block to maybe 3 days. His remark, while rude and impertinent, did have some substance, and a hard block doesn't serve to do anything but cause more unhappiness. Thanks for considering,[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:48, 25 August 2012 (EDT):If you unblock him, you're responsible. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:54, 25 August 2012 (EDT)::I recommend keeping the week. And don't > dont. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:01, 25 August 2012 (EDT):::Thanks for pointing out the typo.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:35, 25 August 2012 (EDT)Please do a careful side-by-side comparison of [[Michael Baumgartner]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054 the Wikipedia article]. I did a google search on "Michael Baumgartner" and came up with a number of sources including the Wikipedia article. I took notes from all of the sources, and wrote a new article based on my notes. I honestly believe that the article uses a different set of sources, covers ideas in a different order, and covers the topic differently than Wikipedia. Please take another look, and if you agree, please restore [[Michael Baumgartner]]. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:05, 27 August 2012 (EDT)*I understand the workload you face. Could you please look at the article and reconsider? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:51, 27 August 2012 (EDT)*:Already restored in good faith; I trust you, and I'm not going to compare it closely. I'll leave that to others. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:54, 27 August 2012 (EDT)On the death of the Rev Dr Moon. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 18:54, 2 September 2012 (EDT)Thanks for the welcome. I wonder if you could help me. I tried [[Special:MovePage/William. J. Fulbright]] but apparently I don't have permission. The page should be at [[J. William Fulbright]], the name of the founder of the Fulbright scholarship program.:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:26, 4 September 2012 (EDT)You changed the first sentence of the protected article on [[Sun Myung Moon]] from the present to the past tense. Could you take care of the rest of the article, too? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:35, 5 September 2012 (EDT)*Feel free to take care of that yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:01, 5 September 2012 (EDT)::I took care of it. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:21, 5 September 2012 (EDT):::Thanks to both of you! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:32, 5 September 2012 (EDT)Mr. Poor, I'm relatively new here and don't completely know my way around. Would you please look at my comment concerning [[Talk:American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel|American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel]]. If my view is in line with the site, I'm quite certain that a template or procedure is needed at this point. If my views are not in line with the site, please feel free to remove that comment as you see fit. You seem experienced here, so your guidance is requested. --[[User:Nouniquenames|Nouniquenames]] 00:03, 21 October 2012 (EDT)== [[Psychological manipulation]] ==I've noticed that you moved/redirected the above article to [[Essay: Psychological manipulation in the Bible]] on grounds "not a general article; case study uses a Bible story". I've got somewhat confused about this step, because IMHO the article is general and only the case study section itself contains a "Bible story". In fact the rest is a combination of various sources, some of them far from having anything to do w/ Bible at all. I was by far not completely done with that article and now I actually do not know how to continue working on it. It says now "This Is An Original Work. Contributors should add their signatures to the end section. If published, a notice will be posted and, if desired, contributors will be recognized." but that was not my idea at all, I would be more than happy if anyone could help to extend that, in my opinion, general article. If I could suggest anything then I would like to suggest to move only the 'case study' section to the essay realms and keep the rest as general article with hyperlink to that essay in appropriate, perhaps 'See Also' section. I also deem as deficiency that article does not appear in the Psychology category now, I believe it belongs there.--[[User:AK|AK]] 10:35, 31 October 2012 (EDT)==[[Objections to evolution]]==As for your rationale for redirect on 'Objections to evolution', namely "I thought we already had plenty of articles opposing the Theory of evolution", I agree with you that "we have", but still would dare to oppose the redirect on grounds that 'Objections to evolution' is an article that brainwashes people at WP and enjoys special defence by witch-hunters who heavily suppress any different points of view there thus I believe it is of significant importance to have available alternative view on the same topic under the very same title.--[[User:AK|AK]] 10:50, 31 October 2012 (EDT)I was doing some ''random page'' editing and found that there was a whole load of quote templates you created a while ago that link to nowhere and nothing seems to link to them. It seems the template for linking these quotes never got off the ground. I'm proposing that these either be deleted or put into some sort of quote page as I don't think there much use at the moment (except for possibly taking up server space). Kind Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 02:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)I am not surprised to see you make changes to the Unificationism page in defense of your church, but why did you remove the part in which Moon told an interviewer, "God is living in me and I am the incarnation of himself." "The whole world is in my hand and I will conquer and subjugate the world." [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19459920?print=true]Are you saying the BBC made that up? [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 08:23, 14 November 2012 (EST):You can put that back in. Sorry for the delayed answer; my day job keeps me pretty busy. :Be advised, though, that Rev. Moon himself disputed the ''conquer and subjugate'' quote, telling Newsweek interviewers that he had been quoted out of context. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:35, 20 November 2012 (EST)== Way to stop the spammers ==Yesterday after I prayed an idea came to me (most likely from god) to stop the spammers from registering the spam accounts. If we can move away from user captcha and instead use a question that requires some knowledge (for example what team does tim tebow sit on the bench for or which team did he turned around) as the spambots will be completely flummoxed by this. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:16, 19 November 2012 (EST):The questycaptcha is excellent for this purpose. It stops ocr bots, and most paid spammers. The code would be: require_once( "$IP/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit.php" ); $wgCaptchaClass = 'QuestyCaptcha'; "A question?" => "An answer!", "What is this wiki's name?" => "Conservapedia", 'Who is Tim Tebow' => 'An athlete', foreach ( $arr as $key => $value ) { $wgCaptchaQuestions[] = array( 'question' => $key, 'answer' => $value );Which you would place in /rootfiledirectory/localsettings.php[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:54, 19 November 2012 (EST)'': Given your considerable experience in operating and maintaining wiki's like Wikipedia and convservapedia, do you think you would be able to implement this ? Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 05:12, 23 November 2012 (EST)Aschlafly wrote the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space ([[Epistle to the Hebrews]]). First he wrote:{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it.'''"}}[[User:Iduan]] toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it'''."}}I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly. I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue. I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person '''in a Biblical matter''' (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:26, 25 November 2012 (EST):If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:37, 5 December 2012 (EST):*''"Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? "'' As I tried to convey with the phrase "this wouldn't have been to problematic", there is nothing wrong with the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. But I think it ''is'' problematic that the ''insight'' of the essay spills over into a page in the main space, i.e., [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], and becomes a ''fact'' during this process.:*''"If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree."'' It's the other way round: stating the ''insight'' in an article in the main space without making it clear that the only source for this idea is Andrew Schlafly is lending it an improper credibility. If you read an unsourced, unmarked statement in an encyclopedia, the reader generally takes it as a kind of common knowledge, even more so if he is e.g., a high-school pupil.:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:28, 6 December 2012 (EST)Conservapedia is a mix of opinion and fact. Each is clearly marked. Talk pages are filled with unsourced claims, and we make very few efforts to police such talk.If there is currently an unsourced, unmarked statement in an article that needs attention, please point it out to me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:09, 12 December 2012 (EST):Thank you - if unsourced, unmarked statements are reintroduced into the article, I'll point them out to you! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 12 December 2012 (EST)Im new here and need some help. I figured I would go to you since you seem very involved in the community. I recently tried to instate an article about R*tional Wiki and suddenly it was deleted. I thought since we had an article about Wikipedia that we could write about wikis. I also noticed that it had been deleted several times by the same people. Why? The words are spam filtered to. I feel that we need to write about the faults and propaganda of this completely biased website. Not to mention they completely badmouth you in the most rude ways. Please help...--[[User:Colesmithsayshi|Colesmithsayshi]] 14:18, 31 December 2012 (EST)I was wanting to know what is the significance of mass weddings in the unification church ? I see your church has recently conducted it's first mass wedding since the very untimely death of the great Sun Myung Moo. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:05, 17 February 2013 (EST)== Not sure how to respond to messages. ==I am not sure how to answer the message you sent me. There does not seem to be a way to respond attached to the message you sent. Do I just respond in this open forum? Thanks.Greetings, Ed. We haven't communicated in quite a while.The reason I am writing is that I saw your recent [[Essay:Campaign_to_make_Conservapedia_unusable]]. I know that this has long been an issue, and that you and I have both put a lot of effort into making math/science articles accessible. I have one comment about it: ''Your audience for this essay is just yourself.'' All the people who made things inaccessible—Foxtrot, Lemonpeel, Jaques, etc, are long gone. So, if you want the situation to improve, instead of writing an essay, you're just going to have to make the improvements yourself.Actually, I'm not sure what articles you have in mind for your criticism. If it's all the topology stuff ([[Regular_space]], [[Sequentially_compact]], [[Hausdorff_space]], ...), you have my sympathy, and you will just have to delete them. No one will improve them. But I strongly advise you ''not'' to delete them. They aren't doing any harm, and no one reads them (except me :-). An encyclopedia is not judged by how esoteric its most esoteric articles are, but by how well its mainstream articles are written, and how well those mainstream articles cover the field. I think the mainstream math articles at Conservapedia, like integers, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers, are pretty good.Which brings me to my specific point. It isn't true that no one edits math articles any more. There was a small amount of activity on integers and natural numbers recently. Perhaps this is what led you to write the essay. I don't think there was anything over-the-top about the recent edits, and I think you sometimes over-react to things like this. I believe that the recent edits in that area were well-intentioned, and trying to do a good job.Giving a really good definition of the integers or natural numbers, in the way that you and I would like, at the appropriate level but with real clarity, is ''impossible''. Saying "evenly divisible by 1" doesn't work, because the reader who doesn't know what an integer is will have no conception of what division is or what "evenly divisible" means. Saying "has no fractional part" doesn't work either. I can see what the author intended--numbers are things like "3.7", and ".7" is the fractional part. So, having no fractional part means it is something like just 3. That's correct, but it relies on having an intuitive notion of real numbers, that is, things like 3 and 3.1 and 3.7 and 3.14159.... (Speaking of which, happy pi day!!!) Now most people have an intuitive feel for numbers with fractions well before they have to think about a formal definition of natural numbers. I know I did. That is, I knew about "3" in the context of "3.7 without the .7", or "the biggest markings on a ruler, rather than all the small ones."So how do you write the article? You do the best you can, giving an imprecise defintion in terms of "numbers that you count with", or something like that. (By the way, I really really liked your "mathisfun" web link explaining these things on an elementary level, and I used it (crediting you) in my article at Ameriwiki.) So the right thing is probably to define "counting numbers", as in the web link, and accepting that that's the best you can do. Then address, very lightly, the issue of how that might be different from "natural numbers", and whether zero is included, and so on. It's not worth making a big deal about. Just pick some definitions, and stick to them. Mention that maybe not everyone agrees. Don't worry about students getting a bad grade on an exam because of a nit-picking difference--people taking exams will presumably have attended a class and gotten the instructor's view on this, if the instructor thinks it's important. The way you addressed the issue in the natural number article is just right.Yeah, the stuff about integers being "the only integral domain whose positive elements are well ordered and in which order is preserved by addition" is over the top. Either take it out or move it to the very bottom. Other than that, I think the natural number / integer articles are in pretty good shape.One more thing: Don't be put off by the fancy "N" symbol. The people are not trying to show off. The symbols are cool, and the students will think so. When I was in junior high, I thought that the summation and integral symbols were really cool, long before I knew what they meant. Let the students see them.And I still say that the Peano axioms would be a good thing to have at Conservapedia. Nowhere near as complicated as "integral domain whose positive elements are well ordered", and really interesting for the target audience. You may copy my Peano article from Ameriwiki if you wish.[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:34, 14 March 2013 (EDT):I just wanted to add my thoughts as a math graduate student who has made several edits to our math articles. As someone who plans on becoming a professor, I think it is fundamental that, as an educational resource, Conservapedia has accessible (to the extent possible) math material. However, we are not limited in space like a print encyclopedia, so there is certainly room for us to have more in-depth coverage of math topics for more advanced scholars. It's not my intention to make Conservapedia unusable as an educational resource; if you think that my edits are not helpful, please feel free to discuss them with me. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:20, 15 March 2013 (EDT)::You may have missed my point, which is that 99% of our readers are concerned with math that is below the college level. I want the majority of our editorial effort in math to focus on what these readers need. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:30, 17 March 2013 (EDT)Ed: I take exception to your implication that I "missed your point" about the intended audience of CP, or how to write for it. Be assured that I absolutely, totally, utterly, and completely understand these issues. If you have any question about this, please see my articles on [[Limit (mathematics)]], [[Algebra]], [[Compass and straightedge]], and [[Cramer's rule]]. ''These are all topics that I studied in high school'', and I'm sure you did too. In particular, I put an enormous amount of work into the limit article.In any case, this stuff is entirely in your hands now. If you have any problems with the math articles, you have the administrative power to delete any articles that you think are inappropriate, like the [[Kolmogorov space]] article. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:57, 4 April 2013 (EDT):Well, thanks, brother wolf, for exposing your neck so meekly. But I have no desire to be top dog, if you'll excuse me for mixing metaphors. I'm glad you understand and work hard, and I hope you will help me make high school math (and below) accessible to the average reader - not just those in the top 1% like you and me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:47, 5 April 2013 (EDT)I must confess that I don't understand your metaphors very much -- brother wolf? exposing my neck? I'm pretty clueless about contemporary culture. But I know what "top dog" means. There's no doubt that you are a top dog, being an administrator. Also, I'm flattered to be considered in the top 1%, but, remember, there have been a lot of really sharp people here. So I'm not sure about being in the top 1%.In any case, good luck, and have fun. And don't hesitate to delete stuff that you consider inappropriate. Really.I'll come by and look around and say hello from time to time. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:50, 11 April 2013 (EDT)I have redone Brenden's edits in a number of different edits. I hope this helps you. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 07:01, 10 April 2013 (EDT):It did. See my subsequent edits. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:23, 12 April 2013 (EDT)Hi Ed, thanks for this entry: [[Islam and tolerance]]. I followed the reference link to the news story "The Roots of Muslim rage", and read the article. I thought it was really interesting, and as I am trying to better understand their beliefs and attitude towards us, (those of Christian faith and in Western Nations) I wanted you to know this was helpful to me, thanks. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 18:36, 15 April 2013 (EDT)Some of your newer articles need some categories. I don't really know much about subject matter so would probably be better if you do it. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:03, 16 April 2013 (EDT):Feel free to place any category at all, when I'm too rushed to do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:18, 16 April 2013 (EDT):: Normally I would, just not to familiar with some of subject matter. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:22, 16 April 2013 (EDT)I redirected your article on [[Christian chivalry]] to the already existing page [[Chivalry]] since they're the same concept and the other page was already much more in-depth. Hope that was alright. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:20, 19 April 2013 (EDT):Did you complete the merge before reducing the page to a redirect? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:16, 19 April 2013 (EDT)I'm not an admin, I don't think I can do a full merge like that... I figured since it was just a sentence and the sentiment of that sentence was already covered in the other article that the redirect would be sufficient... sorry. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 22:26, 19 April 2013 (EDT):If you did your best in good faith, then no apology is needed. :-):I'll take a look later on, and if I think that quote is relevant I'll tack it on to [[Chivalry]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:28, 19 April 2013 (EDT)==[[Talk:Gun control#New Infographic]]==As you are one of the main contributors to the [[Gun control]] page, I'm writing here to ask you to follow the link I posted in the heading of this section and read the data I found. I think it could be very helpful to the article, but as I said there I'm far from an expert in interpreting that kind of data. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:59, 20 April 2013 (EDT):I'm interested in describing both sides in the [[Firearms debate]]. I don't think we have to overemphasize one side. Put in anything you like. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:59, 20 April 2013 (EDT)==fnarrow's reply to your terms==I'm just copy and pasting what he sent me, please don't shoot the messenger. [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], I agree to your terms unequivocally and will do everything I can on the future to not allow my emotions to get the better of me in the future. That said, I just want to take a second to point out that 2 of the 6 examples you gave of my behavior, (4 and 5 I believe, i do not have the other page open as I type this email) were not posted by me but were part of a comment posted by another user in response to my comments. The other 4 I do not deny and I agree that they were out of line. To that end, I would like to point out that if you or [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] look at the final interaction between myself and [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] in the "why complaints will go nowhere" section of that same page, you will see that we had settled our differences peacefully. It wasn't until after that that i was banned for earlier statements made in the heat of the moment and out of exasperation regarding the situation at the time they were made. I do not contest the justice of the 1 day block, but when it was immediately followed by the infinite block before I had a chance to respond, apologize or anything else, that was when I felt I had been treated unfairly and asked my friend to join the site as a conduit for contact. (thanks again John!) While I therefore still think the infinite block was unwarranted, i do apologize for my actions and will not allow it to happen again. Thanks for your time and i look forward to helping the site grow from this point forward. --fnarrowbtw, I'm not 100# sure what a "sock" is, assure you that to my understanding of the term I am not one. I have neither the time nor the inclination to edit your wiki and only made this account at my friend's request since he had no other contact anyone here. [[User:JSandler|JSandler]] 22:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT):Karajou said I could unblock Fnarrow. I hope this turns out okay. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:29, 29 April 2013 (EDT)Would you be able to restore Fnarrows user and talk page whilst your at it mate ? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:30, 29 April 2013 (EDT):(this is [[User:fnarrow|fnarrow]], I'm using [[User:JSandler|John(jsandler)'s]] phone at the moment as my IP is still blocked even though my user page shows that I have been unblocked by [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]... Can that be fixed?) I wanted to thank everyone for helping me understand what happened and helping me get reinstated. I look forward to working with you all more in the future. Also, as [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] already posted, is it possible to have my user page and talk page content restored? Most of it can be deleted now that issues have been settled, but I'd like to recover other parts. Thanks again, [[User:fnarrow|fnarrow]] 14:00, 29 April 2013 (EDT)::Ed, yes I can post again, I had assumed you had unblocked me... but I guess not based upon your comment on my talk page. Anyway, can you restore the content which was deleted from my user page and talk page? I don't know how to do that... Also, since you're a very knowledgeable Conservative and I consider myself to be a fairly knowledgeable Libertarian I'd be willing to work with you on the [[Conservatives and libertarians]] page you created if you're still looking for someone to help with that project. Let me know. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:12, 30 April 2013 (EDT)I unblocked your username. Someone else seems to have unblocked your IP address; I don't know how to do that.I'll leave your user and talk pages as C left them - ask him if he wants them undeleted. I'm just unblocking you, in light of your promise to chill out and be more focused on articles. Please start the [[Conservatives and libertarians]] page, and I'll join in. Thanks! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:41, 30 April 2013 (EDT):I think we can do that although I am not good with wikis. From what i Understand, Libertarians are conservative when it comes to economics, gun ownership, small government, defence etc but are closer to liberals on other social issues. The way I understand it, libertarians believe the law should protect person and property, but go no further than that. I will do some research in the next few days, write a beta copy and forward to you for review/editing if thats ok::Excellent, Patmac. I'll add that to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 30 April 2013 (EDT)== Homosexuality article and General protection idea/proposal ==The [[homosexuality]] article seems to be a bit broken. The table of contents is in the wrong position. Could you or another sysop please fix this ? Also I had an Idea re article protection. Would it be possible to protect some article so that only those users with '''edit''' and '''sysop''' rights edit them. This would allow those pages to be edited and improved by trusted and known users whilst stopping liberal trolls and thugs pushing their POV and vandalizing them. I think that something like this would help improve the quality and accuracy of the encyclopedia as it would allow for updates, improvements, tweaks and general formatting improvements to be made to our most popular articles [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:45, 4 May 2013 (EDT):For questions about rights (which involve software tweaks), talk to Andy. I can always unprotect an article at least temporarily. But if you want a longterm solution, I'm the wrong man to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:41, 4 May 2013 (EDT)*You should highlight quotes by including them in apostrophes: see [[Help:How to Code]] for a simple introduction - and follow [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Odysseus&diff=1052312&oldid=1052300 this link] for an example.*If you include a link to a source just by using simple square brackets (like
..
Archive: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }Hello Mr. Poor, I would like to submit a writing plan. While I haven't been asked for one, I feel this would best help keep me on task and contribute the most productively. You seem to know an awful lot about this wiki stuff, and I'm still new at it, so if you could help me that would be great. I think I'd first like to help contribute to the various book articles around the site by adding in examples of the influence of Christianity, as a lot of books have Christian overtones that aren't currently listed. I'm thinking I'd like to start by drawing parallels between the story of Jesus in the Gospels with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Please let me know if this would be acceptable.--JeremiahJ 18:10, 6 January 2011 (EST)
Probably not. Please email me a draft. --Ed Poor Talk 20:02, 17 January 2011 (EST)Hello Mr. Poor, I have submitted a request here but it was never attended to. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:19, 28 February 2011 (EST)
Hello Ed Poor, I hope this message finds you doing well. I was wondering if you could upload this image for use in the article I recently created. I look forward to hearing your response. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:32, 7 March 2011 (EST)
Hello Ed Poor, could you please add Atheism and the suppression of science to this template? I really appreciate it! With regards, AnupamTalk 11:14, 7 March 2011 (EST) Hello Ed Poor, I need two more images for the article I created which are available here and here. Recently, User:JMR10 uploaded my previous one, for which I am thankful. Could you ask him to do the same for these two or could you please do these for me? I highly appreciate it. Thanks, AnupamTalk 19:40, 7 March 2011 (EST)My proxy keeps dropping stuff, so the picture at the top is busted. Also, I had to cut down the reference, because the captcha can't make it through. It should have a left bracket, and h,t,t,p, etc., and a right bracket after the "pdf". I wonder if you could please fix it for me. I will contact Andy about getting my IP range restored.
What I was going to put in the talk page (and will do once things get straightened out) is that the two cited articles are very shallow, having only 7 and 3 sentences, respectively. They both refer to a "plan", but that's because the word "program" hadn't been coined in the computer context. She really was the first person to write "code".
I'm sorry about this. SamHB 00:08, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
I read her notes, and it doesn't look like a computer program to me. A charitable view might be that it's a spec, but there's no flowchart and no source code. Don't be sorry, just get it right. --Ed Poor Talk 18:21, 5 April 2011 (EDT)What did you expect this "source code" to look like? The term "source code" implies both a programming language and "machine code" that the source code is assembled or compiled into. Assemblers, compilers, and programming languages wouldn't be invented for another hundred years (by Grace Murray Hopper, John Backus, and others.) The same goes for the other accoutrements of modern software development, like flow charts and specifications. In fact, even the terms "software" and "program" hadn't been invented.
Furthermore, assuming that you accept that she had to write "machine code", what would you expect machine code to look like for a machine that reads its instructions with rods poking through holes in large punched cards running around on a track, and does its arithmetic by counting teeth on turning gears? It wouldn't look much like Intel 586 code.
The fact is, the lines of Ada's written algorithm were intended to be punched into lines of holes in Babbage's cards, once the "analytical engine" was built, which it wasn't.
By the way, what I was being "sorry" for was not the content of my edit, but the fact that an extremely buggy proxy messed up the article and wouldn't let me fix it, despite several tries. Andy has been working with me to fix the network problems, and DMorris fixed the broken picture and hyperlink while my access was broken. SamHB 20:39, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
Then it would be more accurate to say that she described an algorithm. That's not the same as a computer program, even if she was hoping that Babbage's machine might be programmed to carry out the algorithm. An encyclopedia should be precise and unbiased, not used to create "factoids" for use in publicity campaigns, such as promoting women in science. I don't say she had to write machine code, but rather to be the "first programmer" she would have had to produce a computer program. If you have seen it, please show it to me. Otherwise, I'm going to make an editorial decision that she produced an algorithm rather than a program. --Ed Poor Talk 12:18, 7 April 2011 (EDT)I love how libs reveal their true selves. No matter what we say or do in describing them, they come here just to confirm it all. So when they want to emphasize "Jew" in "karajou", I'll be more then happy to get a gold Magen David to wear around my neck, join my brothers and sisters in the synagogue every week, and show everyone else just how hate-filled and intolerant these liberals really are. Karajou 14:20, 12 April 2011 (EDT)
Hi! I tried to add the information for Edo to the Tokyo article and for some reason,. it stripped a bunch of stuff out when I saved. Now when I try and revert the edit I made, I keep getting a internal server 500 error. Please can you revert for me? TracyS 10:19, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
It's ok, I fixed it! TracyS 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT) I'm glad it worked out for you. My Japanese name is "Edo". --Ed Poor Talk 11:04, 14 April 2011 (EDT)You beat me to every one! Nicely done--IDuan 20:05, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
Thanks. I'll pass that on to my secret bot. --Ed Poor Talk 20:10, 24 April 2011 (EDT)I must be doing something right. Every time I mention alternate viewpoints, and no one sees fit to revert my edits, I get vandalism to my talk page. --Ed Poor Talk 12:48, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
I'm trying to reorganize the information, not leave it out. If you notice, I'm working on the article quite a bit. May I please revert your revision? SharonW 15:05, 14 June 2011 (EDT)
Sure. I'm frequently too bold and hasty. And that's the wonderful thing about a wiki. Nothing is ever really deleted; it's all in the article history. Go for it! --Ed Poor Talk 15:09, 14 June 2011 (EDT)I'm lobbying for a separate namespace for the Conservapedia Bible Project. The idea is that each verse gets its own article, which can be used rather as a template. I see a couple of advantages:
verses can be quoted more easily: instead of copying the whole verse, only a short link (like {{:CBP:John 20:8}} ) is neccessary to get a neat result: {{:CBP:John 20:8}} thereby, the use of the CBP is encouraged over other translations. if there is a change in the CBP, the afflicted verses don't have to be tracked down manually, but the change is applied automatically throughout the wiki.To accomplish this, a new namespace has to be created. That shouldn't be too difficult, as there are only a few exemplary pages prefixed with CBP: at this moment.
But after this, the namespace has to be filled with the existing translated verses. My question: is your bot up to this task?
AugustO 10:53, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
Hi, please strongly reconsider your desire to create a "kinder article." In stating that madonna is a person who has changed to being more spiritual you are buying to the liberal media's lies. It sounds like a madonna fan attempting to weave their bias in, which of course you are not. I think you may want to do more research, and read my recent additions as she is still, if not more so, a wicked and hateful person who has sucked millions of children into raunchy culture, dated murderers and mocked our Lord Jesus Christ who gave his life for us. Madonna deserves only the truth.Legolas2186 Talk 13:14, 14 July 2011 (EST)
And I just had a long conversation with some Wikipedians in Central Park last month, about whether CP is more neutral than WP. Now you want "conservative bias" to denounce Madonna Ciccone? Not even Wikipedia's BLP policy would allow that. I wonder whether you are a liberal tempting me to add bias, just so you can accuse us of being biased. Well, if so, I choose not to cooperate, my dear elf. --Ed Poor Talk 15:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT) I think Legolas here might be a parodist. Would you mind looking into him? NickP 00:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)Ed, your compassion sounds a little misplaced to me. Do you also visit the Fred Phelps, Bernie Madoff, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson pages asking people for some "Christian charity" to tone those down too? Look into me all you want please. I dislike Madonna because she has mocked our lord Jesus Christ. Conservative people have respect for Christ end of story. The reason society has degraded is by giving raunchy people like madonna a free pass and pity. I'm the one who wants to print the ACTUAL history of madonna that the liberal media has left out such her dating the felon Chris Paciello. I only want the truth about her in the article. Why is that so bad? I thought this was the one place that might allow the truth.Legolas2186 Talk 10:34, 17 July 2011 (EST)
Ed, can you please look into this guy? He is an obvious parodist. NickP 15:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT)First of all - Ed is a senior sysop at this site - I don't know why a few of you have taken upon yourself to post on Andy's talk page when Ed is more than capable of dealing with an alleged parodist on his own. Secondly, just because he is posting radical things on a talk page does not make him a parodist. Looking at his contributions, you could argue that he is edit warring, but since Ed is simultaneously the user in the revert war and an admin, it is up to his judgement as to whether or not a block is deserving. Your collective alarmism has now spread across three talk pages. That's enough.--IDuan 16:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
@NickP, your very.... quick to call somebody else a parodist. Why not leave that to the pro.'s to decide?--SeanS 16:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT) Several others have also pointed out the fact that he acts very suspicious. NickP 16:13, 17 July 2011 (EDT) Saying he "acts suspicious" and saying he's a 100% no way im wrong about this Parodist is two completely different things.--SeanS 16:16, 17 July 2011 (EDT) I prefer what Wikipedia old-timers used to call "soft security". Just help me fix the articles in question. Everything will sort itself out. --Ed Poor Talk 23:34, 17 July 2011 (EDT)Ed, I left three (actually six) problem Categories that need some sort of merging at User_talk:EdBot. Thanks. Rob Smith 15:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
Sorry, EdBot did not survive the MediaWiki upgrades. --Ed Poor Talk 16:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT) Does that mean it's all got to be done manually? Moving 200 entries into another Category? Only if they really have to be moved. (Meanwhile, if anyone has an idea how a bot can "log in" with the new MediaWiki software, let me know.) --Ed Poor Talk 16:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT) This should help. Indeed, the whole page is quite interesting. AugustO 09:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)Hi Ed,
I'm very sorry to come to you with this, but I honestly don't know where else to turn at this point. You have always struck me as the voice of reason and level-headedness here.
Simply put: the current altercation on Andy's talk page is out of control. I recognize that I have no authority to tell sysops what they should or shouldn't do, but it seems to me that basic common courtesy calls for not filling up Andy's talk page with arguments and accusations. Moreover, the very public nature of the dispute is encouraging other users to join in. Some of them are doubtless sincere; others, I suspect, may in fact be parodists seeking to fan the flames (I notice a LOT of recently created accounts.)
Regardless, the fact remains that Andy's talk page has been turned into a general forum for accusations and arguments. At this point, it's degenerated to the level where people are making absolutely vicious personal attacks against certain of the participants. (Kudos to JamesWilson for promptly reverting the most egregious of these.)
You know the other sysops better than most of us; you talk to them; I would certainly hope they trust and respect your opinion. Is there anything you can do to persuade them to take a step back, cool down, and wait for Andy to respond at this point? Everyone involved has made their positions clear; further acrimony can serve no useful purpose.
I'm sorry to trouble you with this, but I really feel that this is both inconsiderate to Andy and deleterious to the Conservapedia project as a whole.
Respectfully,
--Benp 13:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but shouldn't I check with Andy before barging in? It may be that he prefers to let everyone air their opinions. It is not just his courage but his wisdom and compassion that attracted me to this project. --Ed Poor Talk 11:59, 5 August 2011 (EDT)Ed, per the site owner, Administrators "instructions...are to be followed" is no longer operable. I have emailed you a copy of Mr. Schlafly's approval. Rob Smith 13:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
Oh, sorry. I was hasty. Feel free to unban MRellek, if you feel I was out of line. --Ed Poor Talk 15:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT) Thank you, Ed. I'm trying to get the other sysops to do more warnings & shorter blocks; let's get a sense of community here. After all, we've known many of these editors (the RW neighbors) for several years now. Rob Smith 15:37, 6 August 2011 (EDT)Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up HERE. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up HERE. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. Conservative 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
I think I got signed up somehow, after jumping into a discussion. Can we have non-sysops on the panel? I'd like to invite a friend from Wikipedia to join it. --Ed Poor Talk 18:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)If so, maybe you can take a look at this and some of that editor's other contributions. They seem pretty obscure/specialized for the general reader, to me, at least. Thanks! MrMorganH 10:15, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
Not an expert, but I know a lot about high school math. Andy's brother knows much more than I do. --Ed Poor Talk 12:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)Good morning (afternoon?) Ed, why was my comment reverted? I can't see why it should be? MaxFletcher 17:54, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Gosh, you're quick on the trigger. See your talk page for my response. --Ed Poor Talk 17:58, 16 August 2011 (EDT) I am indeed quick on the trigger, I like Westerns you see..:-) I have responded to you on my talk-page and re asked the question in a more cordial manner. MaxFletcher 17:59, 16 August 2011 (EDT)The panel proceeding have begun here: Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. Conservative 12:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
Ed, in all sincerity you are by far the most interesting person I have met at Conservapedia. I regret that we couldn't get along better, though we did manage to improve a number of things. SamHB 23:12, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
We'd have gotten along better if we more goals in common. Building a trustworthy encyclopedia apparently was not one of them. In this drive by attack you dodged my request for specific instances of the problem you complained of. (Note: saying "all of them" is a a typical liberal dodge. That's like global warming alarmists saying, "Just look at the temperature record; the evidence is all there." For those listening in to this fascinating drama, the difference between real science and liberal junk science is that real scientists provide examples of what they're talking about, so that anyone can check it out and see for themselves. Liberals and other pseudoscientists pretend that they've already made the point. It reminds me of Japan, which always (1) says that it "already apologized" for the comfort women episode while steadfastly (2) refusing ever to admit that it did anything wrong. They are hoping we'll all be too polite to mention that #1 contradicts #2. Nice try on the parting shot, but your pretense of trying oh so hard fools no one. You're always welcome to come back if you ever choose to help this project instead of undermining it with trickery. --Ed Poor Talk 11:41, 19 August 2011 (EDT)Hi Ed, thanks for your help archiving my page. I know you are very experienced with Wikis, but I was wondering why you removed what I wrote about the government shut down of Pontiac destroying American history. A lot of people were really upset about Pontiac's closure and there are lots of websites and articles proving this, why can't it be in the article? I will differ to your judgement because you are so experienced, but just want to understand your reasoning. --CraigF 22:46, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
It can't be in the article until you find a way to make it trustworthy. Use references. You can't just write stuff off the top of your head, because you are not an established author. You are in fact an anonymous person, and we don't even know whether Craig is your real name. If there's a lot of proof for your assertion, be sure to provide references, like: The New York Times reported that after GM was taken over by the government, brands like Saturn and Pontiac were sold or eliminated (link and/or date) If you need help formatting references, lots of people here can help. But you must supply them. --Ed Poor Talk 09:43, 20 August 2011 (EDT)Hi Ed, how do I add pictures? --CraigF 16:08, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
You can't add pictures, until you've made enough useful contributions to earn upload rights. --Ed Poor Talk 21:34, 20 August 2011 (EDT) In addition, Craig, you can use Conservapedia:Image upload requests until you earn uploading privileges. A Sysop will do it for you.--JamesWilson 21:59, 20 August 2011 (EDT) Ok, I'll work even harder to earn my rights! I also wanted to apologize for being so familiar, my mom pointed out that I should be calling you Mr. Poor. I always call adults by their last names in real life, but on the internet I usually forget. Also thanks Mr. Wilson for your advice about upload requests. --CraigF 13:24, 21 August 2011 (EDT) No worries. I wouldn't mind if you called me James or Jim, but I'm glad your mother has taught you well. Also, you will need a lot more work to earn uploading privileges, just so you know. Happy editing in the meantime!--JamesWilson 14:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)Just got edit conflicted by you on the Morse code page - what are the odds we'd both be working on it! MaxFletcher 17:19, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
One thought leads to another ... not such long odds. Sorry about stepping on your work. Feel free to revert, and I'll recover later. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 17:22, 24 August 2011 (EDT) Its all OK, I added my work to your version. Great minds think alike, more like an average mind in my case but you catch my drift...:-) MaxFletcher 17:24, 24 August 2011 (EDT)I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed the format of your signature to use for my own. It's simple and to the point, but looks nice as well, so I thought I would use it as well. Thank you! KevinDavis Talk 16:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
I copied mine from someone else, so "Pay It Forward." --Ed Poor Talk 21:27, 27 August 2011 (EDT) Oh, ok. Thanks for letting me know! KevinDavis Talk 09:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)i looked up milk and butter how is this conserivtive? is it like wikipedia at all what can i add? ty. --Rainbowboiz 00:35, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
Not unless your spelling improves. And we are not so much "conservative" as trustworthy. Unlike Wikipedia, we really do try to avoid political bias. Add anything that is correct and useful. --Ed Poor Talk 11:17, 28 August 2011 (EDT)I know his stage name is much better known (I'm writing the article on him, obviously), but wouldn't you think using the subject's real name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia? If you think the article should be titled under his stage name, you're the boss, but I thought I might want to point that out. Thanks!--JamesWilson 11:14, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
Please help me as I am fairly new to this wiki. I have attempted to propose a discussion for deletion on this particular page. Before disccussing this, I have followed the instructions on templates via the help index [[1]] to add it to a discussion for deletion but this does not seem to work so I have not proceded further - with hindsight I should have guessed there was something wrong by the lack of entries on this page. My reason for wishing to commence this discussion is that I suspect the article (created by a user who does not appear to have an active talk page) seems to me to be parody and trolling to debase the credibility of this project. In my opinion, most of the logic followed in nearly every assertion is spurious and often uses blatant synthesis that a ten year old could question. It is to such an extent that I don't think an "improved" version would be posible. Of course, others may have different oppinions which is why I am trying to be fair and open it for rational discussion. What is the correct procedure? Thank you in advance - answer to my talk page DavidMilton 19:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. Maybe you could post on the talk page, showing a few examples of "spurious" assertions. --Ed Poor Talk 22:46, 7 September 2011 (EDT) Ok I can do this, but I'm surprised that hte Help feature supplies a redundant page on discoussing articles for deletion. I was also under the impression that you had Sysop/Admin powers and would be familiar with such policies as it is a feature on other wikis. DavidMilton 13:31, 8 September 2011 (EDT) Actually I know policy fairly well and do have Sysop/Admin powers. Either provide the requested examples, or drop the matter. --Ed Poor Talk 13:47, 10 September 2011 (EDT)Sid 3050 was blocked for three month for trolling. The only edit he made during the day before his block seems to be to answer to your question in a section above (So, will it go away if you ignore it?) - see his list of contributions. You had personally addressed this comment (But I'll take a look at Sid's material below now, just to be a good sport.), so you should be able to judge whether such a comment is trolling. Could you please review Sid's block? In a timely fashion? Thanks, RonLar 09:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Sid was trolling. Whether this justifies a three month block is up to the admin in question. I'm always open to suggestions for making Conservapedia more trustworthy. If you have anything specific in mind, please speak up. Of particular interest to me would be any material relating to the contrast between conservative and liberal viewpoints on American political issues, as well as philosophy, religion and science. To my regret, repeated invitations to include users who are ideological opponents of this project have not met with an enthusiastic response. It's almost as if they wish to conceal their ideological differences; ironically, this could be seen as self-censorship. If anyone wants to describe liberal POV here they may, provided only that it is clearly labeled as such - not presented as gospel. This should not be an onerous requirement: it's the same as Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Ed Poor Talk 10:42, 15 September 2011 (EDT)Help! A user called CortA is currently vandalising articles. --SamCoulter 13:15, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
OK, Andy blocked him. --SamCoulter 13:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)I was quite astonished by your last actions. I slept over it and want to clarify my earlier remark.
I'd appreciate if you would be less generous with your slight innuendos ("thanks for nothing!", "misled by RonLar"): these make it difficult to assume good faith on your side. And they have the annoying tendency to backfire... my statement "Where is the right place to propose an alternative viewpoint? Surely not in the article itself, but on its talk-page. This is a simple necessity for all protected articles, but a good idea for most of those articles some sysops feel strongly about." is hardly misleading - even though it is not written by a native speaker! In fact, it is echoing the sentiments of Conservapedia's editing etiquettes: You should discuss changes made by an Administrator before reverting their edits. Administrators are charged with seeing that article content is in line with Conservapedia guidelines. Edit warring with an Administrator usually results in a temporary block. You should not alter the editorial content of an article away from a conservative, or Christian, or family friendly "tone" without discussing proposed changes on the talk page. Never make substantial edits to an article without discussing your changes first on the talk page. If you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change(s), the changes are just formatting / copy editing, you should proceed. Inserting an alternative viewpoint is most certainly a substantial edit - and the etiquettes advise you to discuss such an edit at first on the talk-page. So, I made a true statement, in accordance with Conservapedia's policy on editing, and you misread it. To reiterate: You weren't misled, you simply misread it. And this misunderstanding (of your part) you took as a reason to erase the whole section and seemingly not to read the rest of my comment? Deleting a section on censorship is always a little bit ironic... BTW: whether the article is protected or not is not of any interest for the discussion of censorship! A library does not only censor the books it throws from it shelves, but the books it doesn't allow into it shelves in the first place! I put the whole section up here, so you can read it carefully again. Take your time, but nevertheless, react timely - you said that would be important....RonLar 12:05, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
At this point, I think it's become abundantly clear that complaining about censorship will get you nowhere. I realize users will come up and be frustrated by certain site traditions, but that's just the way Conservapedia is run, RonLar.--CamilleT 13:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT) Sorry, I thought you were saying the article was protected. Also, I'm astonished to think that you consider adding alternative viewpoints to be something that has to be cleared with a sysop first. My understanding of project policy is that all contributors are free to describe non-conservative, non-Christian views ... especially on an article describing a controversy between the two sides. Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --Ed PoorTalk 16:38, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
RonLar 16:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT) Eh? I thought you wanted help. Please answer my question: Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --Ed Poor Talk 20:39, 17 September 2011 (EDT) How is it a sensible use of my time to answer new questions when you seem to ignore my answers to your old ones? Please remember your statements: Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you. and I asked for an instance of ideological censorship. Well, you find it here: User:RonLar#Again.2C_the_previous_example_of_ideological_censorship.2C_in_detail Of course I am willing to answer any question concerning this specific example of censorship, especially those which indicate that you read the whole comment. Thanks, RonLar 02:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)Nearly two weeks later: Did you take a look? Or even better, did you read the whole thing? RonLar 18:17, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
In general I'm a Clancy fan but I think some of the criticism you removed was valid. For example by the time he wrote "The Bear and the Dragon" his standards of research had perceptibly dropped (The AH-64 has a 20mm gun? Really?) and "Red Rabbit" and "The Teeth of the Tiger" were frankly rubbish. Maybe some of the criticisms should stay? --SamCoulter 23:09, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Anything can stay if properly sourced: X said Y about Z. --Ed Poor Talk 23:10, 17 September 2011 (EDT) What would be an acceptable source? I have all Clancy's books; would they be acceptable sources for pointing out declining standards of technical accuracy? --SamCoulter 23:20, 17 September 2011 (EDT) LOL, your interpretation of Clancy's writings would be (what is called at Wikipedia) original research. If you don't know what I meant by 'properly sourced', then you're unqualified to contribute anything further to this project. If you do know, you're just toying with me. Godspeed. --Ed Poor Talk 23:23, 17 September 2011 (EDT) Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I'd do is reference both Clancy's books and technical sources that contradict them, such as the fact that the AH-64 does NOT have a 20mm gun. Like I said I'm generally a Clancy fan - "Without Remorse" may just be the best thriller ever written - but his last few books have been a bit disappointing and his research has definitely slipped. --SamCoulter 23:28, 17 September 2011 (EDT) What I would propose is to remove the comments about "The sum of all fears" - a nuclear weapon could be built with a table saw and a small lathe, never mind optical milling equipment - but keep and expand on the comment about the declining level of technical accuracy. The divergence of the Ryanverse from reality isn't important because it IS fiction, but the declining level of research and tendency towards unrealistic assessments of real-world capabilities IS important. For example "The Bear and the Dragon" is utterly unrealistic even in the Ryanverse. If China invaded Russia they'd get about ten feet over the border before being annihilated. The fortifitions on the Sino-Russian border make the Maginot line look like a sand castle on the beach, and they were actually designed by strategic thinkers. --SamCoulter 23:44, 17 September 2011 (EDT)On second thought, maybe I'm being too hard on you. I recently started tutoring schoolchildren, and I'm learning to be more patient with their quaint notions. After all, making wrong guesses and getting them corrected is often the best way to learn. Shall I not condescend to grant you the same grace? ;-)
I've read all Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan and John Clark novels. I always assumed that any discrepancies were inserted on purpose; Clancy certainly would have no reason to put correct information on how to make a suitcase-sized nuclear bomb in his books: what conservative would want to inspire a copycat crime?
If you want to include "criticism" by some published author who says an attack helicopter does or does not have a certain sized gun, go ahead. He's also not very accurate about the software used in the stock market, although it was a key plot element in Debt of Honor. (Come to think of it, if a man knew everything and wanted to make money betting on horse races, he would know not to put all his winnings on the next race ("John Doe" TV series pilot). --Ed Poor Talk 15:56, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
Language like this makes me extremely uncomfortable: "when grownups talk", "woman's logic is strange, don't you think", etc. (especially this in his earlier statements: "and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985")
First, I am not a woman. My identity is very well known and I am quite easy to find. Ottava means eight, and Ottava Rima means Eight Rhyme, a type of rhyming pattern used in Italian epic poetry. Second, his language is condescending, misogynistic, religiously bigoted, etc. Third, his claims about the Big Bang Theory are rather strange, conspiratorial, and nothing I have ever heard by any legitimate scientist. I cannot honestly believe that he is a real conservative but I believe he is a plant just like many of the people who vandalize. His job is to produce some of the most absurd stuff to try and make conservatives look awful. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but his language does not seem like something that is appropriate. I talked to Geoff Plourde about this quite a bit tonight because it bothered me a lot. Ottava (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Atheism and obesity - is this a joke? It seems to be just a list of fat atheists. It even has random tidbits like "Chuck Norris endorses the Total Gym exercise system.[59]" I know many priests who are overweight, and many religious people who are. I know many atheists who are ultra thing and anorexic.
"Christian and Library of Congress researcher's explanations of reports of UFOs " How would that even deal with atheism and obesity? Yet it is in there.
The page looks like it was created to make Conservapedia and conservatism look really bad. Sigh. Ottava (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
User:Conservative is good at attracting readership to this website. The Atheism and obesity seems to me a bit of payback for the liberals who call Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot. --Ed Poor Talk 15:57, 24 September 2011 (EDT) And in his payback, he demeans everyone who is overweight, including myself. I've dealt with mean-spirited behavior from people about weight the majority of my life - there is no acceptable reason for being hostile about the issue. --SharonW 16:53, 24 September 2011 (EDT)easy to find --DrDean 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
Not as easy as you say. See Talk:Bestiality. --Ed Poor Talk 15:44, 24 September 2011 (EDT)Hi Ed, I would like to bring something to your attention as a senior administrator. I have been in private communication with User:SamCoulter over the last few weeks. There is nothing in his attitude and comments to me in private and his behaviour here on Conservapedia to suggest this user is anything but sincere. He was recently blocked for the edit here (the last edit he made - I will not link directly to it because the topics are extremely offensive and not family friendly). For this effort he was blocked for three months. His edit was a) relevant b) correct according to the article linked and c) was a link which was on the front page already. It seems that some users wanted to quote the article without implying the articles conclusions as they were at loggerheads with a users personal opinion. I don't think the user should have been blocked but now he is I won't remove it but I do believe that 3 months is extremely heavy-handed. I don't want to create controversy so I will not chnage the block myself but I am bringing this up with you and User:Karajou also (I am unable to contact the blocking sysop). Thank you. MaxFletcher 20:11, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
Keep him blocked. He vandalized twice. In fact, I am going to increase the time blocked. Conservative 21:02, 25 September 2011 (EDT) Do you have evidence of this vandalism? MaxFletcher 21:04, 25 September 2011 (EDT) If you want to defend those recent contributions be my guest. If you want to wrangle with me about them, it is not going to happen. Conservative 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT) I tell you now there was no vandalism you are blocking a user for adding sourced and factual material. You are blocking him for no reason! MaxFletcher 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)Sorry, but it's actually very easy to avoid a block. I suggest you start coaching new users about courtesy, project goals, etc.
I myself disagree with the project goals of RW, but they haven't given me any long blocks. Why? Because I follow their rules in their house.
Adolescents often have trouble figuring out what the rules are, or trouble realizing the benefits of following them. (In the long run, civil disobedience campaigns against beneficial institutions such as Democracy and Free Markets simply backfire.) --Ed Poor Talk 10:52, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
I respectfully disagree with you. It's incredibly easy to get blocked on this site, because honestly, it appears to depend on the whim of the blocking editor (doesn't like what's being said because it's contrary to the blocking editor's opinion, got up on the wrong side of the bed, had a fight with someone in real life and are taking it out on editors here at CP.) You yourself just handed out an infinite block for defending someone. Many editors, myself included, have protested User:Conservative's articles and his method of defending them. If anyone objects, he automatically deems them an atheist/evolutionist, etc., which at least in my case, is far from the truth. I object to several things. First, his use of "obese" as a ad hominem attack against people whose ideas he disagrees with. I've dealt with bullying behavior about weight most of my life, and have tried to point out to him how hurtful his taunts are, but he thinks it's amusing, and the other sysops here (yourself included) appear to agree. I'm all for a good discussion about ideas, but when the attacks become personal, and all-inclusive, then yes, I'm going to protest. Second, most of the articles are just badly, badly written. They meander miles away from the original topic, they tend to be a bunch of quotes lumped together, and in many of them, the point that he's trying to make is missed completely. The actual subjects might be valid, and important enough to warrent an article on them, but creating 10 articles that say the same thing, and that can (and should) be consolidated into one, well-researched and well-written document, is just poor scholarship. --SharonW 12:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT) Well, thank you for not giving me an excuse to block you! ;-) Very well written . . . As I've said elsewhere, [2] I disagree with the stance of "the admin" who is making ad hominem attacks on atheists; I think it's a misguided attempt to attract readership. If anyone's had a good edit reverted for a bad reason, they can just let me know. Just remember: if anyone is criticizing to condemn, I'm not interested, but if they want me to change things, I'm the man who can do it. --Ed Poor Talk 16:03, 2 October 2011 (EDT)I see you blocked BrentH for trolling and reverted 2 of his edits. He linked Professor to an existing article here on CP, Professor values. Why was that trolling? --SharonW 19:55, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
Perhaps prior edits?--SeanS 20:01, 1 October 2011 (EDT) User: Ed Poor did not appreciate the section right above this one--CamilleT 21:14, 1 October 2011 (EDT) BrentH made a perfectly reasonable and respectful suggestion. It would appear from the edit history that he was referring to an article about Winona Ryder, created by Ed Poor, which contained one piece of trivia but no basic information regarding the person whatsoever. What BrentH said is simply common sense, and I too cannot see how this can justify a block. DavidZa 22:45, 1 October 2011 (EDT) Indeed, certain longstanding members of this community seem to have rather thin skin. I did not see BrentH's post as offensive or out of line--CamilleT 22:54, 1 October 2011 (EDT)You wrote that on my talkpage. This is an encyclopedia.. Well, if it is articles like bestiality and Britain ahould be deleted because, as I have pointed out numerous times, it has nothing to do with bestiality and Britain. MaxFletcher 16:27, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Article deleted. [3] Hey thanks Ed. Just for the record though I wasn't "bothered" by the content so much as bothered by the lack of content. As the commandments say - everything must be true and verifiable which that article clearly wasn't. Many thanks. I must admit - I have a lot of respect for you and karajou. MaxFletcher 16:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT) Ed, evolution was birthed in Britain and secularism has grown rampant in their country. Now their society is a mess and there is rioting in the streets. In addition, the Guardian just published a puff piece on bestiality. I say enough is enough and it's time their moral rot is exposed. I realize that pointing out that folly and consequences of atheism/evolutionism annoys liberals, but so what. Not only are they grossly and obviously in error, but atheists/evolutionists have shown themselves to be timid little bunnies. I restored the article because I feel confident that Conservapedia can stand up to foolish and timid little bunnies. :) Conservative 17:21, 2 October 2011 (EDT) Enough with the insults conservative. I am neither a liberal nor an atheist and am sick to death of you accusing me of such. The article has nothing, I repeat nothing about the practice in Britain. I say again nothing. You poor scholarship is on show and we can all see it. MaxFletcher 19:02, 2 October 2011 (EDT) Ed, a Brit was trying to bring over his deviant farming practices to the United States as can be seen HERE. Conservative 20:28, 2 October 2011 (EDT) You misread the article, Conservative. The Oregon farm is owned by an American. The British man was visiting it. Read here for a version of the story that makes who owned the farm clearer. There is no way I'd let children any where this site with Conservatives despicable articles all over the place. MaxFletcher 20:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT) Max, I heard Oregon was pretty liberal. It figures the farm was in Oregon. Conservative 22:30, 2 October 2011 (EDT) I heard that most states are pretty liberal... But that doesn't make the rumors true. ~ JonG ~ 22:34, 2 October 2011 (EDT)Oregon voted for Obama plus fairly recently they had the most atheists per capita in the United States. Conservative 22:57, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Omaha, Nebraska also voted for obama but calling it liberal is very silly--SeanS 22:58, 2 October 2011 (EDT)Oregon is liberal Conservative 23:07, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
I'm slightly confused as to why it's relevant or not that Oregon is liberal. After all the state DOES have a law against bestiality, so that argues against liberals being tolerant of it. --ColSharp 08:33, 3 October 2011 (EDT) Since when do liberals obey the laws on the books in the first place? This photo [4] is proof that liberals have no intention of obeying laws regarding littering. They trashed Washington D.C. when they got their way, January 20, 2009. Karajou 09:10, 3 October 2011 (EDT) There's a law in New Jersey about recycling, yet I know several conservatives who refuse to recycle. Why is this? ~ JonG ~ 13:26, 3 October 2011 (EDT)To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See here for the latest accusation. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. MaxFletcher 19:21, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
I am disappointed in you most of all Ed. Coming from wikipedia and being the first to jump on others for incivility you ignore when it comes to the ruling chaste of Conservapedia. You should be ashamed. MaxFletcher 17:48, 12 October 2011 (EDT) Max, I think you assume entirely too much about my dispositions. You really don't know what extent I "cackle" or if I "cackle" at all. You also don't know what value I place on "winning". In fact, you don't even know if I am one person or a team. I/we remain inscrutable. Conservative 19:24, 12 October 2011 (EDT) User:Conservative, this is getting silly. You wrote for instance: Actually KhalidM, I have a very outgoing personality and a university professor friend of mine told me that I would make a great administrator because I can be very diplomatic. While I realize that I will never cultivate a large atheist or liberal fan club, I can live with that. Conservative 20:34, 5 October 2011 (EDT) So, while your grammatical gender may be undetermined, your number isn't. AugustO 15:44, 13 October 2011 (EDT)The article of King George I was deleted as a creation of vandals. On the talk page I read the comment of User:RJJense: I added much new text, all of which I wrote, and previously posted on Citizendium. I looked up the article at Citizendium and it seemed to be quite informative - certainly not vandalistic! Could it be restored? I'd like to insert a valid link into electors. AugustO 15:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
I restored the last version by RJJense. I feel confident that his last version was a good article. Conservative 16:34, 13 October 2011 (EDT) Thanks - it really seems so! AugustO 16:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)Hello, I noticed that you placed the quotation marks around the term "New Ordeal." As you have probably noticed I have been attempting to fix that article. Quite frankly, the article is pretty bad to start with and several of the references that prior authors cited have nothing to do with the topic. Do you know if there is procedure in which this article may be recommended for deletion? --Padams 15:33, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
Better to mark it as an essay. --Ed Poor Talk 16:31, 19 October 2011 (EDT)I looked at Conservapedia:Editor's_guide#If_you_get_blocked:
If you get blocked, it's probably because you (1) broke the rules and (2) ignored hints, requests and/or warnings. So the first thing you should do is review your communications with others here, particularly those who are admins. Have you been trying to get along by following our practices and supporting our goals, or have you been trying to change our ways? If you are new here, it's best to go along to get along. After you have contributed a lot, we'll be more likely to listen to your suggestions, but breaking the rules will just end up with eliminating you from the project.
I can't think of any rule which I broke I was requested to to do some charitable work somewhere instead. I'm already engaged in such work, so this doesn't apply... I don't try to change our ways. I try to correct factual errors (e.g., ?d?? can be translated as at this moment or that it is right to call Carolus Martellus the grandson of Carolus Magnus.)Perhaps upon reflection you may realize that you'd rather be part of the project than insist on your own way. You might want to apologize and get unblocked.
I don't insist on my own way and I apologize if anyone feels insulted by my criticism.If you want to discuss your block, do not create a new account. Rather, use one of the following methods to appeal the decision (listed in order of preference).
1. Contact the person who blocked you (see below).
2. If you get no reply after a reasonable amount of time, you may contact any Administrator.
3. Email cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com giving the name of the Administrator or editor who blocked you, and the date, and it will be forwarded on to them.
If you contact more than one person about this, please do them the courtesy of letting them know who else you have tried contacting.
This should be obvious from the header of my emails.Contacting an Administrator or editor can usually be done by one of the following methods:
Use the "Email this user" link in the toolbox. This, however, will only work if both you and the Administrator or editor have enabled this on your/their respective accounts. The Administrator or editor may have provided an email address or other contact information (e.g. AIM) on their user page. This section seems to be obsolete: email this user doesn't work for any of the administrators I tried to reach. And I couldn't get Ed Poor's email address via his user page. So we are in a Catch 22 kind of situation... I emailed to aschlafy@aol.com, conservapedia@zoho.com and cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com. I didn't get any reply (is 1-2 days a reasonable amount of time to wait? I thinks so...) to my short email which stated: I understand that my criticisms of CBP and the World History Lectures are quite unwelcome, but they are hardly trolling! I'd appreciate if you lift my block. So I decided to create a new account to appeal the block, hoping that the advice against this action is as obsolete as other sections of the editor's guide.ErnestO 07:56, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
August, I think you should start a career in sales. You certainly have the persistence to be a good salesman. :) Conservative 09:47, 26 October 2011 (EDT)Ed Poor, the block of AugustO is now more than a week old. I tried to reach you via various channels - could you please lift the block as the stated reason ("trolling") doesn't apply? ErnestO 11:09, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
Please get a writing plan from him and get it to me, and I'll consider it. Meanwhile, any sysop is free to unblock him. --Ed Poor Talk 21:01, 31 October 2011 (EDT) Is that any official Sysop, or anyone with Block rights? I'd be happy to unblock Mr O so that he can post his writing plan.--CPalmer 10:25, 1 November 2011 (EDT) On second thoughts, perhaps I'll just go ahead. Please reverse my action if I'm overstepping the mark.--CPalmer 10:33, 1 November 2011 (EDT) Thanks for the unblock! I read the article on the writing plan, and I'll try to provide you with one. This would be easier if a sample plan were provided. But nonetheless, here it is:Mainly I'm interested in the CBP. Mind you, I'm not Junker Jörg, I'm not capable to create a translation on my own which stands for hundreds of years. But I think that translating the Bible in a group, and extensively discussing your work is a marvelous way to get a greater insight into the Book of books. While doing so, I try to dig into what Conservative calls the ANE culture, as you can see here, where I try to shed light on timekeeping during the Roman empire.
When I came here, I thought that there would be a group of likewise interested individuals, but at the moment there seems to be only one other editor with similar interests.
As my approach to the CBP generates quite a few edits on talk-pages, I balance these with edits to articles. These tend to by connected somehow with my namesakes (August of Saxony, Ernest August of Hanover), the history - or just happen on pages where I read something which puzzled me :-)
AugustO 09:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
It would be a great idea to merge the articles. In fact, if you were interested in expanding the article, I might be interested in helping.--James Wilson 14:28, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
Yes, please help me organize this. We should give prominence to conservative views, but let's steer away from censoring liberal views. It would be nice if liberals could see why conservatives believe differently. --Ed Poor Talk 14:43, 29 October 2011 (EDT) OK!--James Wilson 14:48, 29 October 2011 (EDT) I merged the articles and added a bit on abortion and political ideology. How is it?--James Wilson 21:53, 31 October 2011 (EDT)perhaps it should be bed bugs (plural), and now when i make an edit and it goes thru, if i try to make another one i get "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it" but no one has. Going back to page and trying anew results in the same. 3.1: longetivity should be longevity.
Jesus is Lord, thanksDaniel1212 07:58, 5 November 2011 (EDT)
Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback HERE
Your assistance would be much appreciated. Conservative 15:05, 16 November 2011 (EST)
I have explained my ideas in private email to you and Andy. --Ed Poor Talk 12:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)There are a few messages to you here: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Air_superiority Conservative 02:14, 26 May 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for picking up some of my "wiki litter" that I left behind (redirects to non-existent pages). I will try to be more diligent as far as not littering in the future. :) Conservative 19:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
You're welcome. And don't bother yourself: it's better for you to focus your time on building the wiki, while less talented contributors like myself do the routine housekeeping. If I had your writing skill, I'd be making whole article like you do. --Ed Poor Talk 11:34, 12 June 2012 (EDT)Fixing a MediaWiki message:
Hello,
Could you perform the edit I described here, on very bottom of the page? I asked Aschlafly but he's probably busy now.
Best Cipe 15:33, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
I know the basics of Wiki coding and not the advanced level coding. I would ask someone else. Try Ed Poor. Conservative 16:32, 13 July 2012 (EDT) Unfortunately, I cannot edit Ed's talk page. Could you suggest someone different? Or message him? The change is rather small and requires only copy-and-paste. More directly: you can copy contents of this: User:Cipe/MW_fix to: MediaWiki:Revision-info. Even if my suggestion is wrong, it can be reverted, so there is no danger. Cipe 16:41, 13 July 2012 (EDT)Okay, I did it. But where can I see the results? --Ed Poor Talk 17:53, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
Thank you very much. You'll see it when checking older revision. Here is an example: [5].
I noticed that MediaWiki has a different message when you're checking current revision. I'll prepare fix in a moment. Cipe 17:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
The message seems to have logged me out. I think it needs fixing. --Ed Poor Talk 17:56, 13 July 2012 (EDT) I also got logged out, but only once. I can consistently see the new message now. Perhaps the software logs out when a edit to MediaWiki is made. Could you please copy User:Cipe/MW fix 2 to MediaWiki:Revision-info-current? I promise it's the last change :) It is shown for a permalink to current revision. Cipe 18:08, 13 July 2012 (EDT) I don't think that's it. I think you need to put the www. in front of www.conservapedia.com --Ed Poor Talk 18:09, 13 July 2012 (EDT) It seems to work. I can see the messages: for past revisions and for current revision. Thanks for changing. Cipe 18:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)I really appreciate being able to get in contact with you directly when the circumstances arise. GregG 18:39, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
Now he can try to justify what he said about the article. Davidspencer 14:29, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
Do you think it would be appropriate to use this image in the Current TV article? It's already in Gore's main article, so why not include it in the article about his obscure TV network on channel 9800 on my TV? --James Wilson 20:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
Hey, I just wanted to apologise for the comments I made related to you, they were impolite and unnecessary. I don't have anything against you or anything, I just posted something that I thought was relevent without thinking how it would be taken by anyone other than myself, as it happened they were rude and quite personal. I acknowledge that I behaved quite badly, and in future I will try to avoid giving you, or others, offense. So..... virtual handshake?Cmurphynz 06:18, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
Oh, don't be so dramatic. Just comment on the articles and issues of the day, and forget about personalities. That's how this project's supposed to run. --Ed Poor Talk 21:33, 18 July 2012 (EDT) lol. Nah it's difficult to tell over the internet how people are reacting, so for all I knew you could have been quite insulted or something, and I had to make sure that I was being very clear. Anyway, coolCmurphynz 01:03, 19 July 2012 (EDT) I'm not sure you get it: We don't want personal remarks on this wiki, clear or not. You need to be clear only about one thing: what you intend to write about an article topic. You must not comment on other users in any way. Is that clear? --Ed Poor Talk 11:01, 20 July 2012 (EDT)Dear Mr. Poor,
As someone who has been the subject of personal comments (see [6], [7], [8], [9]), I would like to share my opinion on Conservapedia's policy on personal attacks.
I think it is very appropriate to make relevant comments on editing and other wiki behavior to determine what the best practices are with regards to editing and other actions and, if necessary, to instruct users who may not know better about such practices. For example, I have informed two administrators about redacting the automatically-generated deletion log entry to remove sensitive material. I have also asked one administrator to include source information in that user's uploaded images, requests with which this user has complied. Likewise, if someone has a habit of posting comments on talk pages without signing them, it is appropriate to inform them of how to sign posts. Further, if someone is about to violate 90/10, a warning is definitely appropriate. None of these have to do with the real-life personality that these editors, many of whom are brothers and sisters in Christ, have; these comments focus on on-wiki behavior.
Further, I think that if someone is going to make a statement regarding real-life facts or Conservapedia's commandments, policies, and best practices, it is appropriate to debate this statement without going into personality details. Such debate may very well include Socratic or rhetorical questioning as a argumentative device.
Of course, Mr. Schlafly is the owner of the site, so he has the final say in this, but I'm sure he would agree with what I have written. Although attacks on another editor's real-life personality should generally be removed, I do not see the need to remove good-faith debate and discussion over user behavior at Conservapedia.
Thank you for reading this. GregG 12:36, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
Yeah, thanks, Greg. If I err on the side of "absolutely nothing about the person" to an absurd point, please continue to help me out. I'm mainly opposed to comments like, "You're a jerk" or "I don't have to follow the rules." Nothing wrong with friendly personal comments, like, "Thanks for pointing out that a rigid, absolutist enforcement of the rules may not be wise." --Ed Poor Talk 11:01, 22 July 2012 (EDT)I saw your Arbcom case over at Wikipedia just today looking through for cases of bias there. :) Wikipedia's - nuts, huh? Lol. I ran into the Obama bias team over there in Scjessey, Wikidemon, and company, back in late 2009. It's become so hopelessly biased by now you've just got to laugh. They know they're keeping all controversy out of the Obama page and how biased they are, and don't care. Well, all my facts are at Conservapedia's services now. :) Anyway, just saying it's nice to see another ex-Wikipedian here I guess - hope we get some more! :) --Jzyehoshua 01:15, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
'User names based on your real name or initials are preferred' does not state that you will be blocked. Also.--Wishnaka 19:51, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
Inappropriate user name. It has been a general principle that one's user name be "based on one's real first name and last initial", though there are a number of reasons why that is not always practical. The point is that we don't like the kind of foolish "handles" that are often used in various blogs and social web sites. If you run afoul of this by accident, you will be asked to create a new account, and doing so will not be considered sockpuppetry. Of course, some user names are essentially just vandalism, and are treated that way.If you don't object, I suggest shortening his block to maybe 3 days. His remark, while rude and impertinent, did have some substance, and a hard block doesn't serve to do anything but cause more unhappiness. Thanks for considering, brenden 20:48, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
If you unblock him, you're responsible. --Ed Poor Talk 20:54, 25 August 2012 (EDT) I recommend keeping the week. And don't > dont. --James Wilson 21:01, 25 August 2012 (EDT) Thanks for pointing out the typo.brenden 23:35, 25 August 2012 (EDT)Dear Mr. Poor, Please do a careful side-by-side comparison of Michael Baumgartner and the Wikipedia article. I did a google search on "Michael Baumgartner" and came up with a number of sources including the Wikipedia article. I took notes from all of the sources, and wrote a new article based on my notes. I honestly believe that the article uses a different set of sources, covers ideas in a different order, and covers the topic differently than Wikipedia. Please take another look, and if you agree, please restore Michael Baumgartner. Thanks, Wschact 14:05, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
I understand the workload you face. Could you please look at the article and reconsider? Wschact 14:51, 27 August 2012 (EDT) Already restored in good faith; I trust you, and I'm not going to compare it closely. I'll leave that to others. --Ed Poor Talk 14:54, 27 August 2012 (EDT)On the death of the Rev Dr Moon. JuanMotame 18:54, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for the welcome. I wonder if you could help me. I tried Special:MovePage/William. J. Fulbright but apparently I don't have permission. The page should be at J. William Fulbright, the name of the founder of the Fulbright scholarship program.
Done. Karajou 17:26, 4 September 2012 (EDT)You changed the first sentence of the protected article on Sun Myung Moon from the present to the past tense. Could you take care of the rest of the article, too? Thanks. AugustO 05:35, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
Feel free to take care of that yourself. --Ed Poor Talk 13:01, 5 September 2012 (EDT) I took care of it. --James Wilson 13:21, 5 September 2012 (EDT) Thanks to both of you! AugustO 13:32, 5 September 2012 (EDT)Mr. Poor, I'm relatively new here and don't completely know my way around. Would you please look at my comment concerning American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel. If my view is in line with the site, I'm quite certain that a template or procedure is needed at this point. If my views are not in line with the site, please feel free to remove that comment as you see fit. You seem experienced here, so your guidance is requested. --Nouniquenames 00:03, 21 October 2012 (EDT)
I've noticed that you moved/redirected the above article to Essay: Psychological manipulation in the Bible on grounds "not a general article; case study uses a Bible story". I've got somewhat confused about this step, because IMHO the article is general and only the case study section itself contains a "Bible story". In fact the rest is a combination of various sources, some of them far from having anything to do w/ Bible at all. I was by far not completely done with that article and now I actually do not know how to continue working on it. It says now "This Is An Original Work. Contributors should add their signatures to the end section. If published, a notice will be posted and, if desired, contributors will be recognized." but that was not my idea at all, I would be more than happy if anyone could help to extend that, in my opinion, general article. If I could suggest anything then I would like to suggest to move only the 'case study' section to the essay realms and keep the rest as general article with hyperlink to that essay in appropriate, perhaps 'See Also' section. I also deem as deficiency that article does not appear in the Psychology category now, I believe it belongs there.--AK 10:35, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
As for your rationale for redirect on 'Objections to evolution', namely "I thought we already had plenty of articles opposing the Theory of evolution", I agree with you that "we have", but still would dare to oppose the redirect on grounds that 'Objections to evolution' is an article that brainwashes people at WP and enjoys special defence by witch-hunters who heavily suppress any different points of view there thus I believe it is of significant importance to have available alternative view on the same topic under the very same title.--AK 10:50, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
I was doing some random page editing and found that there was a whole load of quote templates you created a while ago that link to nowhere and nothing seems to link to them. It seems the template for linking these quotes never got off the ground. I'm proposing that these either be deleted or put into some sort of quote page as I don't think there much use at the moment (except for possibly taking up server space). Kind Regards Dvergne 02:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
I am not surprised to see you make changes to the Unificationism page in defense of your church, but why did you remove the part in which Moon told an interviewer, "God is living in me and I am the incarnation of himself." "The whole world is in my hand and I will conquer and subjugate the world." [10]
Are you saying the BBC made that up? Daniel1212 08:23, 14 November 2012 (EST)
You can put that back in. Sorry for the delayed answer; my day job keeps me pretty busy. Be advised, though, that Rev. Moon himself disputed the conquer and subjugate quote, telling Newsweek interviewers that he had been quoted out of context. --Ed Poor Talk 10:35, 20 November 2012 (EST)From Aschlafly's talk page Yesterday after I prayed an idea came to me (most likely from god) to stop the spammers from registering the spam accounts. If we can move away from user captcha and instead use a question that requires some knowledge (for example what team does tim tebow sit on the bench for or which team did he turned around) as the spambots will be completely flummoxed by this. Dvergne 09:16, 19 November 2012 (EST)
The questycaptcha is excellent for this purpose. It stops ocr bots, and most paid spammers. The code would be: require_once( "$IP/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit.php" ); $wgCaptchaClass = 'QuestyCaptcha'; $arr = array ( "A question?" => "An answer!", "What is this wiki's name?" => "Conservapedia", 'Who is Tim Tebow' => 'An athlete', foreach ( $arr as $key => $value ) { $wgCaptchaQuestions[] = array( 'question' => $key, 'answer' => $value ); }Which you would place in /rootfiledirectory/localsettings.phpbrenden 15:54, 19 November 2012 (EST)
Given your considerable experience in operating and maintaining wiki's like Wikipedia and convservapedia, do you think you would be able to implement this ? Regards Dvergne 05:12, 23 November 2012 (EST)Aschlafly wrote the essay Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space (Epistle to the Hebrews). First he wrote:
"The Epistle to the Hebrews is the nineteenth book of the New Testament, and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it."User:Iduan toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:
"The Epistle to the Hebrews is the nineteenth book of the New Testament, and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it."I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.
I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.
I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person in a Biblical matter (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.
--AugustO 19:26, 25 November 2012 (EST)
If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? --Ed Poor Talk 23:37, 5 December 2012 (EST) "Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? " As I tried to convey with the phrase "this wouldn't have been to problematic", there is nothing wrong with the essay Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?. But I think it is problematic that the insight of the essay spills over into a page in the main space, i.e., Epistle to the Hebrews, and becomes a fact during this process. "If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree." It's the other way round: stating the insight in an article in the main space without making it clear that the only source for this idea is Andrew Schlafly is lending it an improper credibility. If you read an unsourced, unmarked statement in an encyclopedia, the reader generally takes it as a kind of common knowledge, even more so if he is e.g., a high-school pupil. --AugustO 02:28, 6 December 2012 (EST)Conservapedia is a mix of opinion and fact. Each is clearly marked. Talk pages are filled with unsourced claims, and we make very few efforts to police such talk.
If there is currently an unsourced, unmarked statement in an article that needs attention, please point it out to me. --Ed Poor Talk 12:09, 12 December 2012 (EST)
Thank you - if unsourced, unmarked statements are reintroduced into the article, I'll point them out to you! --AugustO 14:02, 12 December 2012 (EST)Im new here and need some help. I figured I would go to you since you seem very involved in the community. I recently tried to instate an article about R*tional Wiki and suddenly it was deleted. I thought since we had an article about Wikipedia that we could write about wikis. I also noticed that it had been deleted several times by the same people. Why? The words are spam filtered to. I feel that we need to write about the faults and propaganda of this completely biased website. Not to mention they completely badmouth you in the most rude ways. Please help...--Colesmithsayshi 14:18, 31 December 2012 (EST)
I was wanting to know what is the significance of mass weddings in the unification church ? I see your church has recently conducted it's first mass wedding since the very untimely death of the great Sun Myung Moo. Dvergne 10:05, 17 February 2013 (EST)
I am not sure how to answer the message you sent me. There does not seem to be a way to respond attached to the message you sent. Do I just respond in this open forum? Thanks.
Greetings, Ed. We haven't communicated in quite a while.
The reason I am writing is that I saw your recent Essay:Campaign_to_make_Conservapedia_unusable. I know that this has long been an issue, and that you and I have both put a lot of effort into making math/science articles accessible. I have one comment about it: Your audience for this essay is just yourself. All the people who made things inaccessible—Foxtrot, Lemonpeel, Jaques, etc, are long gone. So, if you want the situation to improve, instead of writing an essay, you're just going to have to make the improvements yourself.
Actually, I'm not sure what articles you have in mind for your criticism. If it's all the topology stuff (Regular_space, Sequentially_compact, Hausdorff_space, ...), you have my sympathy, and you will just have to delete them. No one will improve them. But I strongly advise you not to delete them. They aren't doing any harm, and no one reads them (except me :-). An encyclopedia is not judged by how esoteric its most esoteric articles are, but by how well its mainstream articles are written, and how well those mainstream articles cover the field. I think the mainstream math articles at Conservapedia, like integers, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers, are pretty good.
Which brings me to my specific point. It isn't true that no one edits math articles any more. There was a small amount of activity on integers and natural numbers recently. Perhaps this is what led you to write the essay. I don't think there was anything over-the-top about the recent edits, and I think you sometimes over-react to things like this. I believe that the recent edits in that area were well-intentioned, and trying to do a good job.
Giving a really good definition of the integers or natural numbers, in the way that you and I would like, at the appropriate level but with real clarity, is impossible. Saying "evenly divisible by 1" doesn't work, because the reader who doesn't know what an integer is will have no conception of what division is or what "evenly divisible" means. Saying "has no fractional part" doesn't work either. I can see what the author intended--numbers are things like "3.7", and ".7" is the fractional part. So, having no fractional part means it is something like just 3. That's correct, but it relies on having an intuitive notion of real numbers, that is, things like 3 and 3.1 and 3.7 and 3.14159.... (Speaking of which, happy pi day!!!) Now most people have an intuitive feel for numbers with fractions well before they have to think about a formal definition of natural numbers. I know I did. That is, I knew about "3" in the context of "3.7 without the .7", or "the biggest markings on a ruler, rather than all the small ones."
So how do you write the article? You do the best you can, giving an imprecise defintion in terms of "numbers that you count with", or something like that. (By the way, I really really liked your "mathisfun" web link explaining these things on an elementary level, and I used it (crediting you) in my article at Ameriwiki.) So the right thing is probably to define "counting numbers", as in the web link, and accepting that that's the best you can do. Then address, very lightly, the issue of how that might be different from "natural numbers", and whether zero is included, and so on. It's not worth making a big deal about. Just pick some definitions, and stick to them. Mention that maybe not everyone agrees. Don't worry about students getting a bad grade on an exam because of a nit-picking difference--people taking exams will presumably have attended a class and gotten the instructor's view on this, if the instructor thinks it's important. The way you addressed the issue in the natural number article is just right.
Yeah, the stuff about integers being "the only integral domain whose positive elements are well ordered and in which order is preserved by addition" is over the top. Either take it out or move it to the very bottom. Other than that, I think the natural number / integer articles are in pretty good shape.
One more thing: Don't be put off by the fancy "N" symbol. The people are not trying to show off. The symbols are cool, and the students will think so. When I was in junior high, I thought that the summation and integral symbols were really cool, long before I knew what they meant. Let the students see them.
And I still say that the Peano axioms would be a good thing to have at Conservapedia. Nowhere near as complicated as "integral domain whose positive elements are well ordered", and really interesting for the target audience. You may copy my Peano article from Ameriwiki if you wish.
SamHB 23:34, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
I just wanted to add my thoughts as a math graduate student who has made several edits to our math articles. As someone who plans on becoming a professor, I think it is fundamental that, as an educational resource, Conservapedia has accessible (to the extent possible) math material. However, we are not limited in space like a print encyclopedia, so there is certainly room for us to have more in-depth coverage of math topics for more advanced scholars. It's not my intention to make Conservapedia unusable as an educational resource; if you think that my edits are not helpful, please feel free to discuss them with me. GregG 20:20, 15 March 2013 (EDT) You may have missed my point, which is that 99% of our readers are concerned with math that is below the college level. I want the majority of our editorial effort in math to focus on what these readers need. --Ed Poor Talk 12:30, 17 March 2013 (EDT)Ed: I take exception to your implication that I "missed your point" about the intended audience of CP, or how to write for it. Be assured that I absolutely, totally, utterly, and completely understand these issues. If you have any question about this, please see my articles on Limit (mathematics), Algebra, Compass and straightedge, and Cramer's rule. These are all topics that I studied in high school, and I'm sure you did too. In particular, I put an enormous amount of work into the limit article.
In any case, this stuff is entirely in your hands now. If you have any problems with the math articles, you have the administrative power to delete any articles that you think are inappropriate, like the Kolmogorov space article. SamHB 22:57, 4 April 2013 (EDT)
Well, thanks, brother wolf, for exposing your neck so meekly. But I have no desire to be top dog, if you'll excuse me for mixing metaphors. I'm glad you understand and work hard, and I hope you will help me make high school math (and below) accessible to the average reader - not just those in the top 1% like you and me. --Ed Poor Talk 08:47, 5 April 2013 (EDT)I must confess that I don't understand your metaphors very much -- brother wolf? exposing my neck? I'm pretty clueless about contemporary culture. But I know what "top dog" means. There's no doubt that you are a top dog, being an administrator. Also, I'm flattered to be considered in the top 1%, but, remember, there have been a lot of really sharp people here. So I'm not sure about being in the top 1%.
In any case, good luck, and have fun. And don't hesitate to delete stuff that you consider inappropriate. Really.
I'll come by and look around and say hello from time to time. SamHB 22:50, 11 April 2013 (EDT)
I have redone Brenden's edits in a number of different edits. I hope this helps you. Dvergne 07:01, 10 April 2013 (EDT)
It did. See my subsequent edits. --Ed Poor Talk 21:23, 12 April 2013 (EDT)Hi Ed, thanks for this entry: Islam and tolerance. I followed the reference link to the news story "The Roots of Muslim rage", and read the article. I thought it was really interesting, and as I am trying to better understand their beliefs and attitude towards us, (those of Christian faith and in Western Nations) I wanted you to know this was helpful to me, thanks. Taj 18:36, 15 April 2013 (EDT)
Some of your newer articles need some categories. I don't really know much about subject matter so would probably be better if you do it. Dvergne 09:03, 16 April 2013 (EDT)
Feel free to place any category at all, when I'm too rushed to do it. --Ed Poor Talk 09:18, 16 April 2013 (EDT) Normally I would, just not to familiar with some of subject matter. Dvergne 09:22, 16 April 2013 (EDT)I redirected your article on Christian chivalry to the already existing page Chivalry since they're the same concept and the other page was already much more in-depth. Hope that was alright. Fnarrow 11:20, 19 April 2013 (EDT)
Did you complete the merge before reducing the page to a redirect? --Ed Poor Talk 22:16, 19 April 2013 (EDT)I'm not an admin, I don't think I can do a full merge like that... I figured since it was just a sentence and the sentiment of that sentence was already covered in the other article that the redirect would be sufficient... sorry. Fnarrow 22:26, 19 April 2013 (EDT)
If you did your best in good faith, then no apology is needed. :-) I'll take a look later on, and if I think that quote is relevant I'll tack it on to Chivalry. --Ed Poor Talk 22:28, 19 April 2013 (EDT)As you are one of the main contributors to the Gun control page, I'm writing here to ask you to follow the link I posted in the heading of this section and read the data I found. I think it could be very helpful to the article, but as I said there I'm far from an expert in interpreting that kind of data. Thanks, Fnarrow 11:59, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
I'm interested in describing both sides in the Firearms debate. I don't think we have to overemphasize one side. Put in anything you like. --Ed Poor Talk 22:59, 20 April 2013 (EDT)I'm just copy and pasting what he sent me, please don't shoot the messenger.
Ed Poor, I agree to your terms unequivocally and will do everything I can on the future to not allow my emotions to get the better of me in the future. That said, I just want to take a second to point out that 2 of the 6 examples you gave of my behavior, (4 and 5 I believe, i do not have the other page open as I type this email) were not posted by me but were part of a comment posted by another user in response to my comments. The other 4 I do not deny and I agree that they were out of line. To that end, I would like to point out that if you or Karajou look at the final interaction between myself and Conservative in the "why complaints will go nowhere" section of that same page, you will see that we had settled our differences peacefully. It wasn't until after that that i was banned for earlier statements made in the heat of the moment and out of exasperation regarding the situation at the time they were made. I do not contest the justice of the 1 day block, but when it was immediately followed by the infinite block before I had a chance to respond, apologize or anything else, that was when I felt I had been treated unfairly and asked my friend to join the site as a conduit for contact. (thanks again John!) While I therefore still think the infinite block was unwarranted, i do apologize for my actions and will not allow it to happen again. Thanks for your time and i look forward to helping the site grow from this point forward. --fnarrowbtw, I'm not 100# sure what a "sock" is, assure you that to my understanding of the term I am not one. I have neither the time nor the inclination to edit your wiki and only made this account at my friend's request since he had no other contact anyone here. JSandler 22:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT) Karajou said I could unblock Fnarrow. I hope this turns out okay. --Ed Poor Talk 09:29, 29 April 2013 (EDT)
Would you be able to restore Fnarrows user and talk page whilst your at it mate ? Dvergne 09:30, 29 April 2013 (EDT)
(this is fnarrow, I'm using John(jsandler)'s phone at the moment as my IP is still blocked even though my user page shows that I have been unblocked by Ed Poor... Can that be fixed?) I wanted to thank everyone for helping me understand what happened and helping me get reinstated. I look forward to working with you all more in the future. Also, as Dvergne already posted, is it possible to have my user page and talk page content restored? Most of it can be deleted now that issues have been settled, but I'd like to recover other parts. Thanks again, fnarrow 14:00, 29 April 2013 (EDT) Ed, yes I can post again, I had assumed you had unblocked me... but I guess not based upon your comment on my talk page. Anyway, can you restore the content which was deleted from my user page and talk page? I don't know how to do that... Also, since you're a very knowledgeable Conservative and I consider myself to be a fairly knowledgeable Libertarian I'd be willing to work with you on the Conservatives and libertarians page you created if you're still looking for someone to help with that project. Let me know. Thanks, Fnarrow 00:12, 30 April 2013 (EDT)I unblocked your username. Someone else seems to have unblocked your IP address; I don't know how to do that. I'll leave your user and talk pages as C left them - ask him if he wants them undeleted. I'm just unblocking you, in light of your promise to chill out and be more focused on articles.
Please start the Conservatives and libertarians page, and I'll join in. Thanks! --Ed Poor Talk 10:41, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
I think we can do that although I am not good with wikis. From what i Understand, Libertarians are conservative when it comes to economics, gun ownership, small government, defence etc but are closer to liberals on other social issues. The way I understand it, libertarians believe the law should protect person and property, but go no further than that. I will do some research in the next few days, write a beta copy and forward to you for review/editing if thats ok Excellent, Patmac. I'll add that to the article. --Ed Poor Talk 12:22, 30 April 2013 (EDT)The homosexuality article seems to be a bit broken. The table of contents is in the wrong position. Could you or another sysop please fix this ? Also I had an Idea re article protection. Would it be possible to protect some article so that only those users with edit and sysop rights edit them. This would allow those pages to be edited and improved by trusted and known users whilst stopping liberal trolls and thugs pushing their POV and vandalizing them. I think that something like this would help improve the quality and accuracy of the encyclopedia as it would allow for updates, improvements, tweaks and general formatting improvements to be made to our most popular articles Dvergne 10:45, 4 May 2013 (EDT)
For questions about rights (which involve software tweaks), talk to Andy. I can always unprotect an article at least temporarily. But if you want a longterm solution, I'm the wrong man to ask. --Ed Poor Talk 16:41, 4 May 2013 (EDT) You should highlight quotes by including them in apostrophes: see Help:How to Code for a simple introduction - and follow this link for an example. If you include a link to a source just by using simple square brackets (like [http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/odysseus.htm]), it appears only as a number (like [1]) in the text, similar to footnotes. But unlike those, it isn't listed in the references. To get it listed there, you have to include your link into ... - tags. (see this link for an example)--AugustO 04:31, 15 May 2013 (EDT)
Perhaps either AugustO or Ed Poor can help me, but other than on recent wikis where the quotation mark and the italic notation can be easily confused, I have never seen italic font used as a stand-alone indication of a block quotation. I have seen italic used for titles of books or for emphasis or for foreign language words, but not as a replacement for quotation marks. Any sources for this alternative would be appreciated. Thanks, Wschact 10:56, 15 May 2013 (EDT) A very good question! Conservapedia states in its Conservapedia:Formatting conventions: Italic sections of text are usually used to portion off a portion of text, indicating it is integral to the sentence without being part of its continuation. But while wikipedia don't like when you put quotes in italics For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics. (See Quotations below.) This means that (1) a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation, and (2) italics are no substitute for proper quotation formatting. Conservapedia doesn't address the matters (as far as I could see). Instead, Conservapedia offer some templates which try to do the job.“the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.”
“the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.”
the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.
the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.
— John Taylor Gatto QuoteBox2 is used ten times on Conservapedia, Quotebox 422 times, Quote box only 1 time. Clearly they aren't very popular. the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family. This is the most popular version, used over 1500 times. My conclusion: The main feature of a quotation are - surprise, surprise - the quotation marks. Especially for short quotes, they shouldn't be omitted. I haven't used them regularly in the past (see the first quotations in this section), but I'll do so henceforth. Conservapedia is mute on the use of italics to mark a quote. But perhaps we should follow wikipedia's lead and just don't do so Indenting via ::: alone is not enough to mark a section as a long quote, at least
..should be used - this indents the quote from the left and the right margin. A longer quotation should use one of the templates - best probably {{cquote}}. Any thoughts? --AugustO 11:50, 15 May 2013 (EDT) My thought is that the last time we discussed a formatting issue, I tried to throw my weight around, and it didn't end on a cheerful note. So why don't I just follow whatever you recommend? --Ed Poor Talk 21:24, 15 May 2013 (EDT) Thanks to both of you. I just want to say that I have never, ever thought of italics as conveying the limits of a quotation. I always assumed that someone had put a printout of wiki-marked up text into an OCR scanner and it just got confused between double apostrophes and a quote mark. I agree with your bottom line. Thanks Wschact 21:40, 15 May 2013 (EDT)
Hi Ed. I'd like to get your views on the discussion between another user and me that took place on my talk page. It looks as if you recently blocked him over another matter. I think he just tried to bully me for no good reason, but I'd like to hear what a senior admin thinks. Thanks for weighing in if you get the chance. DanAP 00:14, 18 May 2013 (EDT)
Ed, I believe RontheDon and Bamorris9 are parodists--Patmac 11:52, 20 May 2013 (EDT)
0 comments:
Post a Comment