Conservapedia talk:Ed Poor

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Ed's Mental State

I believe that Ed has either Bipolar Disorder or Borderline Personality Disorder. Ed seems to have moments of rationality and then some cases of emotional instability. He runs hot and cold as if he is hitting manic and depressive states. I often wonder if his meds are regulated.--TimS 09:54, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Honestly, I think he's the most sane of them all there; while that's not saying a huge amount, I don't think he's the one to worry about.-αmεσ (tinker) 10:07, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Who (apart from Andy of course) is the least sane then. I can make a case out for any one of them. Susan^Purrrrrrr 10:12, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Lets face it, to become a sysop at CP involves endorsing beliefs that make you, in my book, as mad as a hatter, as nutty as a fruitcake, and definitely a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Debating their sanity is like chosing prefered methods of capital punishment, it misses the point. Furthermore it would be churlish of us to descend to personal abuse (fun though). Silver Sloth 10:21, 14 January 2008 (EST)

While I agree, I'd say that the most batshit of the CP sysops is Ken

. His user page and the very long subpage of mostly "LOL!" should confirm this. ENorman 16:24, 28 January 2009 (EST) That's well said SS!-αmεσ (tinker) 10:24, 14 January 2008 (EST) I think this should be moved out of the mainspace. How about to Conservapedia:Sysops/Ed Poor ? And delete the redirects it leaves behind... human 10:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)

This article needs a major rewrite. Ed has been just so batshit insane and dishonest recently that we need to document it properly. Genghis ^Marauding 12:31, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

I suspect Ed's nickname may be an injoke of some kind that I'm missing because I haven't been following this stuff for long enough. However if it isn't, I would like to suggest a new nickname for Ed - Ed "Piss" Poor. That's all.Seventhrib 18:29, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

I believe that I have used that myself in the past. Unfortunately it did not garner popular support. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

"pisspoor" is too probably too britslang for the Merkin clone eels. Private eye use it a fair bit. Yours truly^{Dear Sir} 16:28, 28 January 2009 (EST)

You need to get out more often, or pay better attention when you do. Burying your face in Private Eye does not inform you about much worth knowing, it seems. Piss poor has been common in spoken American English for fifty years at least. Got a hairless twat that wants covering? Cause I got a merkin for you right here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed's Everywhere

He is EVERYWHERE on the web, even Gardening Daily! He's a one man task force for the moonies! Just look! He must be a full time mony apologist, there aren't enough hours in the day to cover his output and hold down a full time job.   ^Contribs_Talk 08:32, 1 May 2008 (EDT) And what's this that he's splattered on a load of sites:

Big Project to Publish Wikipedia

I'm in touch with a non-profit foundation that wants to incorporate all 500,000 of Wikipedia's articles into its proposed Encyclopedia. I would really appreciate any advice on how to do this:

• fairly and ethically
• technically, conveniently
• without ruffling anybody's feathers (author Ed Poor ?)

  ^Contribs_Talk 08:35, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Has he said anything about the Holy Handkerchiefs? NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 08:44, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Heh! not that I've found yet but I've found the encyclopaedia referred to: [1] "The w:Unification Church is reviving its Encyclopedia Project. Preliminary discussions have taken place between w:Andy Wilson and w:user:Ed Poor about possibly merging the church's article database with Wikipedia. Dr. Wilson has expressed interest in acquiring MediaWiki software and setting up an independent server, although Ed Poor is concerned about avoiding a fork. Deadline for print version is 2008."   ^Contribs_Talk 08:52, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Found this from WP: Andrew Wilson is Academic Dean of the Unification Theological Seminary.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 12:06, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikimaster vs. Wikipedian

In light of him being one of the Founding Fathers of Wikipedia and his Sysopship ambitions there, I liked the "Wikipedian" as in "Ed who has not! the skills to be a Great Wikipedian", even if the corrected version is more factual. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 07:04, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Okay a lot of the things under other should be moved up then. $\approx$$\pi$ 07:05, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Third Reich equivalent

Now appearing on all our entries for CP sysops. Do we really need this? I thought there was a general consensus here that direct comparisons with Nazis are best avoided most of the time, per Godwin's Law. I think these TR equivalents started as somebody's joke list, which is fair enough, but putting them on the individual entries seems a bit too much, especially when there's no explanation of what specifically makes Ed Poor like Goering, Karajou like Himmler, etc. or even why CP sysops need to have a "Third Reich equivalent". I say we get rid of them. weaseLOId~ 15:32, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Seconded. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I think it trivializes the Nazis. Proxima Centauri 15:40, 17 November 2008 (EST)

A consensus of two is enough for me. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

It looks like it's the work of DickTurpis, from the list on his user page. Maybe the list should be saved somewhere (Fun or Essay) & linked from the Conservapedia:Sysops page. Then we can take down the comparisons from the individual entries. We should probably wait for a couple more people to comment, & preferably Dick himself, before taking action. weaseLOId~ 15:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

TOO LATE! --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Work?

Just for fun, I wasted a little time putting a few permutations into Google such as "Ed Poor", "Edmund Poor", "staff", "teacher", "math", "creative writing", etc., and the result was interesting. Other than places like WP, CP, NWE and so forth, I can't find any version of his name on any staff list anywhere. Neither can I find him listed as teaching any classes in math or writing, or in fact any classes at all anywhere. Is this guy actually even on staff anywhere? Are his classes, perhaps, internal to the Unification Church? That last is the only explanation I can think of that makes any sense, given his sole presence online is wandering around to various wikis and forums, promoting the Moonies and generally fucking things up. --Kels 12:07, 23 November 2008 (EST)

My guess is that his "classes" are internal to his basement, & consist of trying to teach his pet rabbit to whistle. weaseLOId~ 12:20, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Ed on Creationism/ID

Read this Wikipedia comment and tell me: does it conflict with his CP image?

“”:Has any philosopher or scientist published views relating to 'a priori' notions? These are the assumptions that we bring to a situation, such as the idea that all physical laws are unchanging. (This assumption underlies all of physical science.) Perhaps we can say more about the distinction between various pseudosciences and "science" on this basis. That is, if a particular idea or claim cannot be falsified because it is taken as a given. In particular, "creation science" begins with one or more assumptions: (1) that God created 3-dimensional space, the physical universe, and the planet Earth; and probably also (2) that God created life on earth. Given these assumptions, creation science goes on to select and highlight all evidence consistent with its initial set of assumptions. It then must deny (or interpret) all contrary evidence. Its methodology, then, departs from the usual scientific method in that it has no intention of checking whether its assumptions are consistent with real-world observations. Proponents of creation science have set it up so that there is no conceivable way to disprove it. In other words, it is not falsifiable in the sense defined by Karl Popper. This is interesting to me - a thinker who rejects Scientific Creationism as pseudoscientific - because I have also wanted to explore similar or related ideas. Intelligent Design looks like the same thing, but there is a dispute between its adherents about whether this is so. Some ID adherents say that it does not contain either of the presuppositions mentioned above. That is, these adherents do not begin with an assertion that God created anything or anyone. But what I don't know - and cannot glean from reading Wikipedia articles - is whether they consider any of their hypotheses to be falsifiable. Is there any evidence an ID adherent would accept, which would lead him to conceding that intelligent design is a false theory? --Uncle Ed (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

—Ed Poor, Wikipedia

Or is he playing devil's advocate? _and marmite 00:53, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Film Critic

Ed apparently spends his time watching trashy films: on Wikipedia he's critiquing yet another one. See the edit comment. This, together with his wp sig "Uncle Ed", gives him a strangely paedophile groomer's creepy air. (you gather I don't like the guy) Toast 06:22, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Mind Control

The "Ed Moon" section mentions him censoring bad uses of mind control, but has he actually spoken out or reverted Andy's accusation that Obama used mind control to steal the election? I don't remember that he has, but I may be forgetting something. --Kels 12:05, 27 December 2008 (EST)

I've clipped that bit out as it seemed a bit muddled. I don't think it was anything to do with the Obama stuff - just a tenuos joke about Ed taking mentions of brainwashing out of a CP article, suggesting this might be related to his Moony involvement. wassaiLOId~ 13:21, 27 December 2008 (EST)

blogspot joke page

A few minutes ago, somebody posted a link to (NSFW)(removed because my brain can't take it), a blogspot joke page. A CPer, JohnsonP, then linked Ed to the site via his talk page (the revision was burned and salted and the user banned), saying something to the effect of "You should either do something about this or resign your position." I hate Ed. But this is just stupid, immature, and lends credence to his paranoia. It also may have unintended consequences, and I'm pretty sure it violates blogspot/google terms of use. So if the person who did this is reading, just take it down - the chance for decent parody has long since passed. Why not a fan site instead?

BoN, I edited your comment to remove the link. I'm not sure I really want to see that again. --JeevesMkII 01:39, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Citizendium

Comments pasted from WIGO CP talk page:

Ed Poor is active on citizendium: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ed_Poor ^{— Unsigned, by: 78.16.168.21 / talk / contribs 15:07, 28 January 2009 (EST)}

Wonder if he'll try to get authority there? Stupid harmonic Phantom! 15:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Does that man have, I don't know, a job?

How about, a life? Etc 15:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)

New irony meter, please! From his user page there: "I am strong (if not vociferous!) advocate of neutrality in encyclopedia articles" alt 15:34, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I think he's a brainwasher for the Moonies. Stupid harmonic Phantom! 15:37, 28 January 2009 (EST)

As this is not related to current events on CP it might be better posted elsewhere so that this page doesn't get archived too soon. Just sayin' for future reference. Done Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:38, 28 January 2009 (EST)

What expertise does Ed have to entitle him to edit ANYTHING on Citizendium!? At most he's an expert on claiming to be an expert - or, perhaps, an expert on mass marriages, cults, and creepy sexual practices.-Diadochus 15:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Spunky hankies. Don't forget the spunky hankies. Mmmmm. Matt 17:06, 28 January 2009 (EST)

So much expertise that he thinks Nixon was President in 1975. Yours truly^{Dear Sir} 15:47, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Apparently--I've just read--participation doesn't require expertise. Experts are meant to guide regular folk in the creation of articles. There is some vetting process to be an expert. One significent differance is the expectation that real names be used. While this certanly isn't an iron clad defense against nere-do-wells it may tend to change the dynamics of how editors of good faith behave. Sanger's theory is that this change will be for the better. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 17:46, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I tried to work on CZ for a while...it was a nightmare. It was small enough that politics weren't diluted by the collective.-- -PalMD ^{--Does this sig line make me look fat?} 17:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I wonder if this is related to Larry Sanger recently popping up on CP (now sadly missing due to the server screwup)?Klapaucius^{Esteemed Constructor} 19:27, 28 January 2009 (EST)

The participation at Citizendium is not that great, the numbers seem to be a little bit dwindling:

Citizendium overview

TOP 100 citizendiens

l'arron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:32, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Heh!

[2] (the edit comment!) _and marmite 11:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)

ooh and the great Wikipedian is edit warring about it too. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:37, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Found on MediaWiki

I'd like to become a WikiMedia developer. How do I start? By learning PHP or MySQL?

There are a number of minor fixes and improvements that I believe I could do, myself, without having to bother other people. I would, of course, test these on my own server (see Wikipedia:Encyclopedia Project) where I am the main tech support guy. If they worked out, I would offer the source code to the MediaWiki project for possible use in Wikipedia.

I am primarily concerned with ease of use. Anything to save keystrokes or consternation, you might say.

I have a lengthy background in programming, architecture, optimization, database structure and software development methodology. I'm also very good at communicating with end users. That is in fact my primary job now: "coordinator" at ABC, Inc. (Application Engineering department).

I was once upon a time a Developer here. Jimbo made me one, because I intended to work on database structure, but I got caught up in administration instead and after the "bureaucrat" and "steward" roles were created, Brion and others asked me to choose between really developing or stepping down. I stepped down, because I had never written even one line of code! I hadn't even done any server administration. No hard feelings anywhere about this, I hope. (I instituted the practice of "voting for bureaucrats" at the English Wikipedia, so at least some good came out if it. ;-)

(Oh, don't worry about me being unilateral here. I understand the need for hierarchy in a programming project. So I will follow all orders given me. Tim, Brion, Erik, Magnus, feel free to order me around. Or even tell me to get lost and not apply! I'm actually rather easy-going. :-)

Please let me know if there is anything I might be able to help with, and if so then advise me on how I might prepare to be helpful. Ed Poor 15:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC

_and marmite 13:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ed has problems in the bedroom?

A Google search for Ed Poor currently returns these titles as the top two links: Problems in the bedroom? Cure Erectile Dysfunction

The rest of the advertising seems to be focussed around erection issues. Is there an aspect of Ed's life that we've somehow missed? ^{— Unsigned, by: Concernedresident / talk / contribs}

Secretary

Gleaned this tidbit from the recent conversation about Ed getting banned from UC topics over at WP (which he tried to wikilawyer his way out of). He then goes to claim that he's not receiving a paycheck from them, although it looks like he misunderstood and is claiming that he hasn't received a paycheck for his actions at WP. So it might be a paid secretarial position after all. Or, who knows, it may have been deceitful boasting in the first place and he was claiming a connection that never existed. Either way, it don't make him look good. --Kels (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Achewood

The bears are watching you. [3] --91.145.73.3 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not as conservative as you think

At some edits, poor may seem like even more conservative than ASchafly. However, look at the talk page about CP's liberal article. He actually says that the current definition of "liberal" on the page is wrong. I think you guys are being overly harsh about him. 98.117.158.220 (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

So he once disagreed with Andy on the definition of liberal and we are now suppose to ignore every other dumb thing he has ever done? - π 05:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he has done bad things, but he acts more rational than other sysops like TK. He's kinda like Phillip J. Raymends. 98.117.158.220 (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not polite to answer a question with a joke, you know. --Kels (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed is hardly "rational". He exhibits signs of multiple personalities as well as being just plain stupid most of the time.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed doesn't draw criticism and mockery because he's conservative. He draws criticism and mockery because he's a choob. Worm^{(t | c)} 12:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed reminds me of the little wimp who follows the school bully around, peering out from behind her back and saying "Yeah! Watch it!" without ever doing anything herself. Basking in the reputation of others. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 12:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed at citizendium

Perhaps Ed's bio at citizendium is of interest for the article? Highlights:

“”I work well with young people, encouraging them to be polite and work hard for the common goal of writing clear, factual, interesting and relevant articles.

“”Academic qualifications: I have no degrees; I'm a self-taught amateur in just about everything I know. However, I scored 760 on the math SATs in 1973 and got a 3 in AP calculus. I understand formal logic and the scientific method well enough to tell whether a theory has been proved or not.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Good find. Yeah, Ed's the biggest idiot on the internet. I wonder what he did to become completely stupid in math, though. I also got a 760 or 780 on the math SAT in 1976/7 or so, and as far as I can tell, the best Ed can do now is multiple 39.37 by two. ħuman 09:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Creepiest. Pic. Ever.

Thank you, to whoever did the Blue Lagoon pic. It's been a while since I've had something that'll wake me up in the middle of the night, screaming. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 10:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed is a nice guy

Ed is a nice guy. I never ran into trouble with him, though I had some reason to, because he was a member of a cult and I an apostate member. I admit that his habit of making very short stubs hurt Wikipedia. Andries (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

He's lazy, slovenly, a liar, an intellectual fraud, and a bully. He's not a nice guy. I propose that we hand RW's fate over to Cthulhu for safekeeping (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had much to do with Ed Poor for years. But my dim recollection of the early days of Wikipedia, he wasn't too bad. I remember having disagreements with him, but nothing egregious. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That was many years ago. But I don't have any dog in this fight. Let someone else here who knows better explain more. I find him odious, and honestly he's one of the few, along with Rayment and TK. I propose that we hand RW's fate over to Cthulhu for safekeeping (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

From observing his interactions on WP and CP, as well as here a bit, it's clear he believes he's a lovely man, nice and fair to everyone. This is totally at variance to reality, where Nutty's assessment is more accurate. He's just polite while he slimes around, is all. --Kels (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely what Kels said. The man has delusions of intellectual curiosity and all the moral understanding of a turnip. Junggai (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we write what he has done and not done and what he believe instead of branding him as "awful" or "nice"? Andries (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your best bet: Go here, search for "Ed Poor", "Uncle Ed", "creepy", "user 188", etc. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed at Wiknic

Looks like Crazy Uncle Ed turned up to the NYC Wiknic last month. And he tagged himself in some photos on Wikimedia Commons: see the last four edits he made on Commons. According to one person I know who was there, eventually he got chatting with some guy who had been blocked from Wikipedia over drama on the Meredith Kercher/Amanda Knox articles and left everyone else alone to carry on eating, drinking and being merry. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ed is asked to cease and desist new stubbing

Looks like Uncle Ed's competence to edit WP is in doubt, and he is being asked to stop being such a fuck-knuckle. 68.116.168.154 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

...followed up by several deletion requests, some for notability, some for lack of citations. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Uncle Ed's usual mechanism to cope with such hard times is to share his misery with the editors at Conservapedia: we can expect quite a few amusing blocks and requests for writing-plans in near future, while Ed tries to bully up his mood...larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Wikimaster"?

I'll dispute some of the content here about Ed's purported status on Wikipedia - "...a well-respected and highly valued contributor at WP". Ed was considered an annoying nutjob from day one. Yes he got elected to some "high" positions in 02/03, but in the early days there was no significance attached to this and it was more like "meh, does anyone want to be a sysop/bureaurat?". Voxhumana (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A link to support the above statement... [4] VOX^HUMANA 03:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

He is purported to be Wikipedia's first elected bureaucrat. That's more than just winning a beauty contest, given the lengthy discussions on voting and elections, and being a position of trust and good judgment. Maybe that says more about the early days of Wikipedia than about Ed. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 07:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

He was, that's true. But this was in the days when there were less than 100 active editors, and there were huge areas of untouched material to write, so no-one actually cared to do the job. Creating content was far more interesting, and we had less than 50,000 articles at the time. Being a bureaucrat was a bit like being the safety monitor. As Wikipedia grew, the position obviously became one of prestige, and Ed has milked that fact for all it was worth. But Ed was certainly not particularly respected by anyone at time, and being a 'crat didn't seem like a big deal to anyone. (Ed was not hated or overly controversial either, to be clear. Most, like me, just found him a bit annoying.) VOX^HUMANA 10:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is RW making fun of his smile?

Not the Dawn of the Ed or Blue Lagoon, but Image:Schlafly Poorhol.jpg?Talk to Civic Cat 22:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Another post I made a year ago that's been unanswered. I'll be taking silence as consent here too.Talk to Civic Cat 19:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)