Talk:Poop/Archive 1

Crap
Bold textA BIG PIECE OF SHIT

number 1,pooh,bowel movments, these are all words for poop. it is ususlly brown somtime u can see food in it,can be red and green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.15.17 (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC) look at the site I think you would agree that it is a very appropriate reference.

yea i agree i mean is bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claireman2 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC) <!--Autosigned by butt.my fat dog P= people O= order O= our P= patties Spongebob SAID THAT IN ONE OF THE episodeS.

And it is a good reference, it's not fiction, and it is NOT vandalism. -Bouncehoper
 * I concur. We members of this illustrious feel we deserve our own wiki page, and we'll start on the poop page. How is that bad?

Yes. I put people order our patties back, and i find this on my talk page: Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --DodgerOfZion 02:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) i asked him to explain him self. *waits to see what he says* EvilHom3r 15:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected
Far most of the edits to this article is vandalism. As such I have semi-protected it; I don't expect the protection to be temporary. Thue | talk 13:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You appear to have protected the talk page. Why is that? -Splash talk 15:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell at a glance, in the list of the last 50 changes nothing was changed, just one long line of vandalism/test edits and reverts. This does not seem like a constructive use of the reverter's time. Semi-protection seem like you a reasonable way to deal with the problem. If you want to frame it in the current policy, you can say that the page is under a constant vandalism attack. Thue | talk 19:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Poop (Cleanup?)
Can someone help me out on this disambiguation page. I've tried cleaning it up only to be reverted by User:Fastifex. I'd appreciate a second (or third) opinion on this. Maybe I was too aggressive in removing some entries, I don't know. Thanks. Gflor e sTalk 16:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose we should be grateful that Wind in the Willows, sound of a motor horn endlessly repeated by Toad is missing. The page as it stands cannot seem to make up its mind whether it is a dictionary entry giving definitions or a standard dab page linking to pages that have a substantive connection with the key word. For what it is worth, I consolidate the definitions as the header and link to poop deck, puppis (bit suspicious of that) and feces. The acronyms look good and I suppose the fictional references could stay(?). David91 16:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would recommend introducing User:Fastifex to the Manual of Style if they have not been already (apparently "Read that page before reverting" did not help?). Most of your edits are valid, it does need to be trimmed down a bit.  They may just not be aware of how disambiguation pages are supposed to exist, and think you are removing information arbitrarily. -- Nataly a  16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are my thoughts. There are several dictionary entries and slang terms there that don't belong and there are two fictional entries that are non-notable or not likely to be clicked on when one searches for 'poop'. Scatology and toilet humor are linked in Feces and don't belong in the dab page. Gflor e sTalk 20:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought your changes greatly improved the page. This is supposed to be a disambiguation page, and there was a lot of chaff. Joyous | Talk 22:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Those changes should be made to bring it up to Dab style. I think we have a clear consensus here. - grubber 04:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * These changes are very good, and look much more organized. I think maybe you should trim down feces just a little bit. (remember, this is only a Disambiguation) other than that its prefect. EvilHom3r 14:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I was expressedly requested to comment here by Gflores, who seems an amiable wikipedian, here is the Fastifex view- I never intended to come to this talk page, but you asked for it. Yet I don't know why I seem to have the dubious honour of being singled out as spokesman of what I'll call the pragmatic camp, since almost none of the 2500 pages of my watchlist generated such a long list of reverts between two camps, each with unusually numerous supporters, I made only a few reverts but did notice that each time I attempted a change (adding and/or shortening) it seemed to be 'defended' by various wikipedians, with none of which I ever had any contact on the matter, so I can only speak for myself. For Natalya's information, I read the manual section before and even re-read it, with mixed feelings as it absurdly came to contain a mention naming me, as if I were some particular alternative style guru, while I neither have no ambiate any following. Anyhow, the above comments sound like the notules of a virtual session of the mutual admiration society of what I'll call the formalistic camp- I don't mean to insult anyone, but it seems like the only advise from the guidelines (NOT rules, it says so) not taken too seriously is to use common sense and logic and use the other rules as inspiration (yes, I'm probably exagerating a bit the other way). The crux is a recurring problem: while the pragmatic camp cares only for content (on Wikipedia), others who by contrast appear as sticklers for formal rules care more for how is is presented, swearing by neatly regulated formulas, which in many cases may work perfectly, but can fail to cater for certain real cases.

If a word has several meanings/uses, it won't take long till the dab lines at the start of a (let's call it main) content page get split off as disambiguation page; and if not right then, it probably won't be long till that gets treated as nothing-but-disambiguation, so meanings 'should' get thrown out; so even if one supposes they are irrelavant (some are, others not) for a reader needing to disambiguate (GFlores will remember my comments on another case, Junta if memory serves me right), where i Wikipedia is an eager contributor to go with minor uses for which creating a separate page (then the formalists may suddenly accept it: call the same line(s) a stub -though often of the most skinny kind- and it may get their blessing) seems excessive? No, Wiktionary is NOT an attractive alternative, for Wikipedia is the most popular website in the world, while in none of the cases I consulted Wiktionary I found it usefull, there's simply not enough data (yet?) to satisfy even a significant minority of Wikipedia users, so I expect like me most readers are unlikely to click there (of course that's no plea against providing that option, on the contrary, I've even made a few wiktionary contributions myself, though I found them very unlikely to generate any response). I sometimes create a 'Homonym(s)' or similar section in a 'main' content page to put minor meanings and other uses in, which seems to work rather well, as long as nobody creates a disambiguation page (I normally don't untill there are several pages beyond stub size); and not so rare are the cases I find content pages still contain other uses (clearly marked or not) even when a disambiguation is available where they would fit at least as well. Anyway, as long as the disambig is clearly structured (etymology is the often very helpfull sister of semantics), an 'excess' of meanings shouldn't hinder any one: the reader can quickly make up his mind whether he wants to read the other sections (I for one often do, just as I tend to read neigbouring articles when consulting a printed lexicon) or swiftly scroll to the one that fits their case. So I prefer to refine the structure rather then throw out meanings, even those I don't fancy at all.

As for the Poop case as such, a comparison of my last version with GFlores's doens't show a hughe difference; while I personally would never consider consulting any of the fictional links, as a separate section that's easy enough to avoid, which leaves as branches only the slang term (I was happy to learn it, we allophones are unlikely to know it) and the exclamation. The comments in the first section are the result of edit commentaries from someone who didn't get the etymological logic of the sequence (it can't always be easy or even self-evident), so I put in; the poem example is, on consideration, probably superfluous.

Now please don't swamp my with reactions or questions on this or other disambiguations, I prefer to spend my wiki-time on adding content, and anyway convincing me wouldn't make any practical difference, as there clearly are many other pragmaticians Fastifex 11:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that we need to have consistency. Imagine if you bought an encyclopedia only to find some entries had Times New Roman and others used Garamond font; it's important that the whole site have consistent strutcture and style. I appreciate that you are adding content, and I hope you can appreciate that others enjoy adding structure. But, in the end, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. And a disambig page is a guide to get you somewhere else quickly. Who is going to search for "poop" when they are looking for an article on insider trading? That's the question that must be asked for every entry. And entries that are dead-ends with no linked articles are clearly not appropriate. I appreciate you responding, and if you are willing to work with us we can make this page (and all other dab pages) conform to the Wiki-style, let's do it! - grubber 15:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more! I hesitated whether to mention fonts and other 'graphical' aspects, which to my mind are the most ludicrous of concerns, I really wouldn't mind if there were 19 fonts on every page if that meant a few percent more information. Besides, that touches a more fundamental difference in approach: the formalists tend to think Wikipdia should be modelled on 'the printed encyclopaedia' (I suppose you dream about a printable version one couldn't tell apart from Britannica?) while I say that is utterly pointless, a virtual medium IS different and should try to make the most of our advantages, which depend on flexibility; while a printed edition has to be a commercially viable, physically finished product as it must be sold for a relatively high price, and may take up several book shelves, we change every second; while Britannica has one of the best reputations in world history (in the same celestial mega-super-league as the BBC, second only to God for believers) thanks to two centuries of input from the academic world elite we are an ant army without the stearing instinct. The whole idea that an encyclopaedia and a dictionary are and have to be completely different things stems from the same print-minded simplism while it isn't even trough in print: for example I often use a Larousse (the leading French lexicography) which combines scetion of both types, and it's an eye-opener how hard it is to tell in which you'll find what you're looking for, heck sometimes even they feel the need to refer from the one to the other. I realize my orginal litany above didn't go into the operation aspect of disambiguation in detail, but it was long enough already and you can find it in my Junta-discours to GFlores. Once again, you're thinking to linear: I don't just go to a disambiguation page when I now what I'm looking for, when I don't kow poop can mean insider trading (and we allophones are very unlikely to, which goes for most slang, and then often even for native speakers of English from other parts of the world, say British versus American English) I need to find it under poop, as I can't guess where else to look (and the success rate on wiktionary is, sadly, miserable, barely worth a try), THAT is when disambiguation is at at its MOST usefull!! In my opinion (never humble, always sincere) you're the one who (I don't doubt in good faith, and please don't take any of this personal, we don't even know eachother) seems not be asking the right question for the reader's real needs. What I realy take offense to (but I'll assume not personal either) is the suggestion that while the pragmatists add content (thank you, that's the end-goal, the form is just a medium) we wouldn't bother with structure! I can honestly say I very often find I'm (one of or) the contributor(s) putting most effort into structuring, especially in content pages (e.g. Emperor was little more then a illegibly long list of case sections, till I devised the more complex, logical-historical structure that still prevails with a few good, content-sensitive adaptations; that takes hours and lots of background, but it sort of carries its own reward: being forced to tie in all the piece of the jigsaw puzzle helps to see what(s missing in the story, so it inspires content improvement, and sometimes actually brings new insights for the editor himself), and in disambiguation it's vital, even as important as the content precisely because that's the only thing that makes it navigationable. The difference is, again, we try to use structure flexibly, fitting it to the logic of reality, however asymmetrical that may be, as formal, more linear 'consistency' as sugegsted by rules is a luxury that must be sacrificed whenever incompatible. Consistency is definitely a complete illusion with millions of contributors, weeding out errors and fitting everything logically (so often structured) is probably about the highest ambition that realistically can be approached. Fastifex 07:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I won't make nearly as long as a reply as yours (because I don't think either of us want that), but I would just like to say that although the WP:MOSDAB is not policy, it being a guideline still holds considerable weight. I agree that rules should be broken, but this doesn't appear to be the case as there are several editors who feel the changes should be kept to maintain consistency and clarity. I will revert to the revision with my changes unless you further object. Gflor e sTalk 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course I object (see above) and of course there will be further reverts. I haven't read a single indication that this Talk exercise inspired anyone to a constructive element of compromise, not that I dared to hope for that (well, at least it's sorty of therapeutical to 'write it off my chest'): our opinions are almost diametrically opposed in several respects and I can't see how we could reconcile them, so Grubbers 'invitation' to work on it seems, well, unworkable to me: how? One more sincere opinion, though: you can't really expect a representative response from the pragmatical camp, as we by definition care much less for guidelines, so we are unlikely to comment on them. Anyhow, I'm not a 'democrat', the number of supporters of an idea I can't in intellectual sincerity share will never turn me, and I doubt whether any guidelies from a non-legislator (of course it's different where ecncial needs or legimitmate publmic authorities are concerned) really hold half as much weight as you presume for most Wikipedians, I rather suspect most don't even bother to read them at all (which is wrong, some definitely contain good ideas one really learns from, whether universally applicable or not) and countless are the edits that clearly suggest they certaibnly don't try to follow them to a significant degree (with or without logical justification, I'm in no way defending many pointless aberrations) Fastifex 07:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your passion Fastifex, but you should read WP:DAB again. Specifically, a dab page is a page to resolve ambiguity not list out every possible meaning. I understand that WP is not a print encyclopedia, but it is also not a dictionary. If you feel the Wiktionary is lacking, then help fix it. But using WP to compensate for Wiktionary is improper. Listen, I am all about compromise, and I agree the rules are not set in stone. If you look at my edit of the page, I didn't make all the changes I thought were necessary for compliance, because I believe in some latitude (many pages I edit bend the rules a bit, and I'll give examples if you like). However, un-wikilinked entries on a dab page are entirely inappropriate. - grubber 20:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're going to go about this unilaterally, is that right? Your opinion on guidelines is disconcerting, as they are established by many Wikipedians and your utter disregard for them is just plain wrong. Just because you don't care guidelines does not make them worthless. Furthermore, you seem to have the mentality of having it your way without any concern for what's best for Wikipedia, what others think, and what the guidelines suggest. Gflor e sTalk 18:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 'going to' do anything, I continue what I always did, and what Wikipedia needs: volunteering some of my time, knowledge and intellectual capabilities to contribute content. My opinions, like anyone else's, are my business, my responsability in conscience, and subordinating them even to a unanimous vote of the UN General Assembly would be wrong- if greater minds then any wikipedian had done so, science would never have progessed and the world would be condemned to eternal ignorance an stupidity. What I can be judged on are my actions, in Wiki-context my edits, which doubtlessly will sometimes be wrong (even the papacy only claimed infalliability on 4 counts, none intellectually significant), regardless of my intentions. But if I'm such an ogre and a danger -to-what? the non-existent Wiki-society? it doens't matter- how can it then be that my edits (we're still on Talk:Poop) are not only followed by the pragmatists, but shortly after your comment above, GFlores, I read on my watchlist: "Poop; 21:15 Gflores (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 70.146.40.160 (talk) to last version by Fastifex)" - apparently my 'plain wrong' methods resulted in something you don't want to revert. A bit further I find you again, with a 'clean up' (I hate that word, as if the previous version were dirty) of Rana, another disambiguation page, which again leaves the essence of my edit unaltered (there's some minor changes I consider neither necessary nor problematic, so again the difference in fact is minute (I put in 'in zoology', and I'm fairly happy even if that stays out): so you're condemning me for my honest opinion, which I only stated here because you asked for that, while you don't seem to care for its actual outcome, but apparently I still am the dangerous one, for not paying lip service to guidelines -to vague to be enforcable, to strict to be universally applicable, a problem with many rules in the real world to- and procedures. I'm not sure what 'unilaterally' is supposed to mean here, but I'm hardly on my own as countless edits 'on my side' are made be many others, I've taken into consideration every fact presented to me (none over here) and apparently my work on Poop (ironically a subject I don't even care for much, for me it's a spin-off of another non-core business page) is done, even so well that even you don't seem to object to the present outcome any more. So think of my what you want, don't claim you alone care more for others opinions (but that's no more essential then anyone's opinions) and don't pretend you or any procedure can determine what's best for Wikipedia, just keep on editing in conscience, as it seems to work out far better in the end then our theoretical positions appear to allow. Fastifex 22:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Want to clean the poop up? Pick yours up first

Protection
Just looking at the edit history it is obvious that this page is very often vandalized. I think it should be protected; does anyone else think so too? FL a RN (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's nothing, have you seen the history for penis or elephant? Yeah, this page gets vandalized, but it's easy to keep up with. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 00:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the edits to duck are vandalism and reverts. The idea of ducks attracts an amazing amount of sillyness. Anthony Appleyard 06:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And don't get me started about cow. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 08:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I know the people who did this
I know the people who did this,and it is a catholic school that I attend, I have talked to the dean of punishment and they have issued a suspension warning for any further destructive editing. The IP address starts with 217, they have edited sevral articles and I can assure you, it will not happen again. Wiki staff know who the "217" computer is. The school has also requested that you closely watch the editing coming from it and issue a ban for the next destructive editing. I am the "appealer" for them, so if anyone has suggestions/complaints contact me. (Im freakin 12 and im an appealer) Why whould the school care for something that happens on the internet?

= BABY TALK: Kalena Talk = I can see that the issue of whether or not this page should be protected, who protects it and how it is to be organized has caused great distention among Wikipedia users. As a baby I am an expert in Poop, both the word the slang meaning. Poop in all forms falls within my jurisdiction. Therefore i propose a new code. I have attempted to clean up this page and make it look a little bit nicer and include some of the suggestions. I use the word "clean" because as a baby i know disorder, and this page is disorderly. I have listed the changes.

First Change (poop = stern, I don't think so)
Originally, the stern, the rear-end of a ship, opposite the bow; hence: *poop deck and poop cabin (located at the stern) *Puppis (the original Latin word), an astronomical constellation


 * Poop does not refer in any way to the back of a ship. You can call the it the aft section, the stern, or just the back of a ship, but you would never hear a sailor calling the back of the ship the poop.
 * In all my research I have not found any real evidence that Puppis (the star consolation) has anything to do with poop or the word poop. If anyone has any actual research to support this argument, I would love to see it.  The only possible evidence I found was |this poorly written letter to TECHWR-L from "Goober Writer " saying that Puppis means the back of a ship so it is the derivative of poop.
 * The closest derivative I could find is the Middle English word "Poupen" or "Popen" which meant to fart. I believe this should be included in a small comment about the syntax of the word. Although to some this may be leaning towards dictionary work, the syntax we will cover is very concise.
 * Therefore I propose a change to this section so that it is broken up into it's two rightful sections then reads as follows:

==Syntax of poop== *From Middle English "Poupen" or "Popen" which meant to break wind. *May be used as a Noun, Adjective, Adverb or verb. (occasionally used in the form of an onomatopoeia). == Historical references to poop:== *The poop deck and poop cabin are found on older wooden ships aft of the steering station. Poop is gross and discusting people at my school look for poop in the stalls. Once they find it they lock people in it. I was lockeed in the stall once and they made me eat it.

Second Change (too much slang in slang section)

 * The beginning of a section should be a section heading. The Wiki creators have given us many tools to use. There is a whole group of tools for organizing words. Please use them. "In Slang:" is not a sentence. It is barely a fraction of a sentence. Certainly not suitable for the beginning of a section.  I just added a the words "uses of" to make the section heading much more professional.
 * When someone say the word poop, the first thought that comes to people's mind is feces. Therefore I decided to rearrange this section and put feces at the top of the list.

*The act of defecation (as a bodily function of the animal/human rear-end, or an infantile onomatopoeia); also used as a verb It needs to be separated to give the flow of the article more logic and reasoning. first lets deal with feces then move on to other less well known poopy items.
 * The above bullet point has four ideas smashed into it.
 * 1) Poop is used to refer to defecation.
 * 2) Poop (defecation) can be from animals or humans or babies (Babies are human by the way).
 * 3) Poop can be used in the form of an onomatopoeia.
 * 4) Poop can be used as a verb.
 * Does "toilet humor" really make it into this subject mater. After talking with some of my baby peers, I have heard arguments from both sides.  Some say in order to preserve the integrity of the wikipedia it should be left out. Other have put up strong arguments about maintaining truthfulness and accuracy and just to make sure that the presentation is profesional and tasteful.  Therefore i will leave it in as tactfully and tastefully as i can.
 * therefore i propose this rewrite:

==Poop:== *Feces or Stool: Solid waste passed through the colon and the anus during defecation. Poop is the result of the digestive track. It is made up of water, dead bacteria, cholesterol and fats, and other indigestible materials. The odor associated with poop comes from the collection of bacteria within the feces. Diarrhea (liquid poop) and constipation (hard poop    or pain while expelling poop) may be signs of a digestive disorder. *Scatology The medical study of poop. Usually practiced by proctologists, laboratory technicians and some veterinarians. *The act of becoming fatigued or of fatiguing another (usually as past    participle; I am pooped) *an older term for the [Inside information]]. Mostly referring to negative information about a    subject, person or company. *Poop is often the subject of jokes and quips. Bathroom humor is related to    human or animal excrements (Feces, urination, flatulence).

Third Change (eatable poop?)
In fiction: *A soft drink and later a candy bar in the cartoon series Invader Zim *A soft drink and later a candy bar in the cartoon series Invader Zim Therefore I propose this rewrite: ==Popular Culture Appearances of Poop== In the cartoon series Invader Zim, "POOP" is a brand of soft drink and candy bar.
 * Here is where i need some help. I have no clue as to whether this information is accurate or not.I am just a baby, i don't know about stuff like this, although it seems to me that the only people who should know about this are three year olds... so i guess I'll wait three years. Since it made the final cut i will assume that it is accurate. Yet the wording is horrible and needs to be changed like one of my bad diapers.
 * Instead of saying "In Fiction" lets try something that actually forms a sentence or at least a part of a sentence.
 * What is wrong with this sentence? It has no subject!!!!!!!!! It has nothing for its actions or adjectives to act on.
 * Simple, yet profesional!

Fourth Change
The acronym POOP may stand for: *Perl Object-oriented programming *Perl Object-Oriented Persistence *Post Object-Oriented Programming *Propane, Oxygen/Oxygen, Propane (mnemonic for safe order for turning on/off a blowtorch: see    oxyacetylene) *People Order Our Patties. A quote from SpongeBob SquarePants The acronym POOP may stand for: ==POOP as an Acronym== *Propane, Oxygen/Oxygen, Propane (mnemonic for safe order for turning on/off a blowtorch: see    oxyacetylene) *People Order Our Patties. A quote from SpongeBob SquarePants *Post Object-Oriented Programming *Perl Object-oriented programming *Perl Object-Oriented Persistence
 * This whole paragraph seems decently organized. I did a little reordering to make it all fit and a little rewording to make it flow with the rest of the page.
 * In an encyclopedia you never want to have the word "May." May means it could but it may not. this casts doubt on what you're saying and will cause readers to loose interest.
 * Therefore I propose this rewrite:

Fifth and Final Change (order in the poop)

 * Now that we have our sections all squared away lets order this beast!
 * We have 5 sections below is an outline of the sections.(I edited them in this order, but thats not necessarily the final order we want)
 * 1) Syntax of Poop
 * 2) Historical References to Poop
 * 3) Poop
 * 4) Popular Culture Appearances of Poop
 * 5) POOP as an Acronym
 * The fist one should be the best general description of poop. That would be Number 3 on the above list.
 * The second should be historical references to poop, because it gives back round to the word. That would be Number 2 on the above list.
 * The third should be syntactical references of poop, because it gives some logic to how poop can be used. That would be Number 1 on the above list.
 * The fourth should be popular culture references of poop so give culture to the word. That would be Number 4 on the above list.
 * The fifth should be the poop acronyms as a final list of terms. That would be Number 5 on the above list.
 * Below is the final outline in the order that flows best.


 * 1) Poop
 * 2) Historical References to Poop
 * 3) Syntax of Poop
 * 4) Popular Culture Appearances of Poop
 * 5) POOP as an Acronym

Here is my final poop page!
START

Poop

 * Feces or Stool: Solid waste passed through the colon and the anus during defecation. Poop is the result of the digestive track. It is made up of water, dead bacteria, cholesterol and fats, and other indigestible materials. The odor associated with poop comes from the collection of bacteria within the feces. Diarrhea (liquid poop) and constipation (hard poop or pain while expelling poop) may be signs of a digestive disorder.
 * Scatology The medical study of poop. Usually practiced by proctologists, laboratory technicians and some veterinarians.
 * The act of becoming fatigued or of fatiguing another (usually as past participle; I am pooped)
 * an older term for the Inside information. Mostly referring to negative information about a subject, person or company.
 * Poop is often the subject of jokes and quips. Bathroom humor is related to human or animal excrements (Feces, urination, flatulence).

Historical References to Poop

 * The poop deck and poop cabin are found on older wooden ships aft of the steering station.

Syntax of Poop:

 * From Middle English "Poupen" or "Popen" which meant to break wind.
 * May be used as a Noun, Adjective, Adverb or verb. (occasionally used in the form of an onomatopoeia).

Popular Culture Appearances of Poop

 * In the cartoon series Invader Zim, "POOP" is a brand of soft drink and candy bar.

POOP as an Acronym
disambig lauren strickland
 * Propane, Oxygen/Oxygen, Propane (mnemonic for safe order for turning on/off a blowtorch: see oxyacetylene)
 * People Order Our Patties. A quote from SpongeBob SquarePants
 * Post Object-Oriented Programming
 * Perl Object-oriented programming
 * Perl Object-Oriented Persistence

END

Final Words (small slap on the wrist)
I don't care if you are twelve or twenty or two or two months, insulting remarks directed towards people instead of directed towards the arguments is just not cool. There are alot of things on this page that are insulting to one another, to your fellow wiki users. Some people here have been acting like they are the "kings of the wiki", and some just acted like jerks. Gentlemen, and ladies if you're reading this, PLEASE STOP TRASH TALK! stop the vandalism, and stop the stupid 'i'm smarter than you' junk.

In fact most of the comments here have been about stupid wiki rules rather than how to make the page better. We need serious people for this task. people who are not afraid to do the research and find out fact from fiction.

Thank you for your time. The code for the new page can be obtained by editing this discussion page. 11/23/06 =BABY TALK: = I have implemented the changes mentioned above. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. A special thanks to whoever unprotected this page so i could make these changes. I will be monitoring this page for vandalism. Thank you.Kalena Talk 12/2/06

Honeypot?
This article seems to be a real draw for silly vandals. At least they are messing with an article on poop instead of, say Political philosophy. Maybe we should turn it into a honeypot and have it automatically block any IP that trys to edit it (other than reverts) :-) Kenj0418 23:58, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Post a pic?
you cannot edit this page. May I post a picture of my ass in this article? no, you may not. that is called pornography.


 * If you'd like a (marginally) serious answer, the feces page would probably be a better choice, since this is a disambiguation page. I'm sure one photo would be (more than) sufficient Kenj0418 06:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

poop
it needs a pic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.186.215.93 (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

poop
THe version that kalena lyon had was better then the version now. It looked better and was more profesional!

Geographic scope
''* The act of defecation (in the US)
 * Flatulence, commonly known as farting (in the UK)''

I'd say that "pooping" would refer to defecation in the UK as well. As for the farting thing, I've never ever heard pooping refer to farting.

--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True dat, we refer to flatulence over here as 'Farting'. Whoever said we say 'poop' to mean fart has read utter crud!-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Poop!!
What the... Why didnt you stick with feces or stool? I mean this is kind of immature... Bloodhonor 04:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC) POOPhere
 * It's a disambiguation page. You seem to be unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should just redirect this to Defecation. I mean, who's going to search Poop and expect oxyacetylene to show up? C Teng (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A small note
I found vandalism from 6 days ago still being shown. Purge fixed it. 209.244.43.112 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected
Far most of the edits to this article is vandalism. As such I have semi-protected it; I don't expect the protection to be temporary. Thue | talk 13:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You appear to have protected the talk page. Why is that? -Splash talk 15:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell at a glance, in the list of the last 50 changes nothing was changed, just one long line of vandalism/test edits and reverts. This does not seem like a constructive use of the reverter's time. Semi-protection seem like you a reasonable way to deal with the problem. If you want to frame it in the current policy, you can say that the page is under a constant vandalism attack. Thue | talk 19:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Poop (Cleanup?)
Can someone help me out on this disambiguation page. I've tried cleaning it up only to be reverted by User:Fastifex. I'd appreciate a second (or third) opinion on this. Maybe I was too aggressive in removing some entries, I don't know. Thanks. Gflor e sTalk 16:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose we should be grateful that Wind in the Willows, sound of a motor horn endlessly repeated by Toad is missing. The page as it stands cannot seem to make up its mind whether it is a dictionary entry giving definitions or a standard dab page linking to pages that have a substantive connection with the key word. For what it is worth, I consolidate the definitions as the header and link to poop deck, puppis (bit suspicious of that) and feces. The acronyms look good and I suppose the fictional references could stay(?). David91 16:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would recommend introducing User:Fastifex to the Manual of Style if they have not been already (apparently "Read that page before reverting" did not help?). Most of your edits are valid, it does need to be trimmed down a bit.  They may just not be aware of how disambiguation pages are supposed to exist, and think you are removing information arbitrarily. -- Nataly a  16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are my thoughts. There are several dictionary entries and slang terms there that don't belong and there are two fictional entries that are non-notable or not likely to be clicked on when one searches for 'poop'. Scatology and toilet humor are linked in Feces and don't belong in the dab page. Gflor e sTalk 20:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought your changes greatly improved the page. This is supposed to be a disambiguation page, and there was a lot of chaff. Joyous | Talk 22:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Those changes should be made to bring it up to Dab style. I think we have a clear consensus here. - grubber 04:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * These changes are very good, and look much more organized. I think maybe you should trim down feces just a little bit. (remember, this is only a Disambiguation) other than that its prefect. EvilHom3r 14:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I was expressedly requested to comment here by Gflores, who seems an amiable wikipedian, here is the Fastifex view- I never intended to come to this talk page, but you asked for it. Yet I don't know why I seem to have the dubious honour of being singled out as spokesman of what I'll call the pragmatic camp, since almost none of the 2500 pages of my watchlist generated such a long list of reverts between two camps, each with unusually numerous supporters, I made only a few reverts but did notice that each time I attempted a change (adding and/or shortening) it seemed to be 'defended' by various wikipedians, with none of which I ever had any contact on the matter, so I can only speak for myself. For Natalya's information, I read the manual section before and even re-read it, with mixed feelings as it absurdly came to contain a mention naming me, as if I were some particular alternative style guru, while I neither have no ambiate any following. Anyhow, the above comments sound like the notules of a virtual session of the mutual admiration society of what I'll call the formalistic camp- I don't mean to insult anyone, but it seems like the only advise from the guidelines (NOT rules, it says so) not taken too seriously is to use common sense and logic and use the other rules as inspiration (yes, I'm probably exagerating a bit the other way). The crux is a recurring problem: while the pragmatic camp cares only for content (on Wikipedia), others who by contrast appear as sticklers for formal rules care more for how is is presented, swearing by neatly regulated formulas, which in many cases may work perfectly, but can fail to cater for certain real cases.

If a word has several meanings/uses, it won't take long till the dab lines at the start of a (let's call it main) content page get split off as disambiguation page; and if not right then, it probably won't be long till that gets treated as nothing-but-disambiguation, so meanings 'should' get thrown out; so even if one supposes they are irrelavant (some are, others not) for a reader needing to disambiguate (GFlores will remember my comments on another case, Junta if memory serves me right), where i Wikipedia is an eager contributor to go with minor uses for which creating a separate page (then the formalists may suddenly accept it: call the same line(s) a stub -though often of the most skinny kind- and it may get their blessing) seems excessive? No, Wiktionary is NOT an attractive alternative, for Wikipedia is the most popular website in the world, while in none of the cases I consulted Wiktionary I found it usefull, there's simply not enough data (yet?) to satisfy even a significant minority of Wikipedia users, so I expect like me most readers are unlikely to click there (of course that's no plea against providing that option, on the contrary, I've even made a few wiktionary contributions myself, though I found them very unlikely to generate any response). I sometimes create a 'Homonym(s)' or similar section in a 'main' content page to put minor meanings and other uses in, which seems to work rather well, as long as nobody creates a disambiguation page (I normally don't untill there are several pages beyond stub size); and not so rare are the cases I find content pages still contain other uses (clearly marked or not) even when a disambiguation is available where they would fit at least as well. Anyway, as long as the disambig is clearly structured (etymology is the often very helpfull sister of semantics), an 'excess' of meanings shouldn't hinder any one: the reader can quickly make up his mind whether he wants to read the other sections (I for one often do, just as I tend to read neigbouring articles when consulting a printed lexicon) or swiftly scroll to the one that fits their case. So I prefer to refine the structure rather then throw out meanings, even those I don't fancy at all.

As for the Poop case as such, a comparison of my last version with GFlores's doens't show a hughe difference; while I personally would never consider consulting any of the fictional links, as a separate section that's easy enough to avoid, which leaves as branches only the slang term (I was happy to learn it, we allophones are unlikely to know it) and the exclamation. The comments in the first section are the result of edit commentaries from someone who didn't get the etymological logic of the sequence (it can't always be easy or even self-evident), so I put in; the poem example is, on consideration, probably superfluous.

Now please don't swamp my with reactions or questions on this or other disambiguations, I prefer to spend my wiki-time on adding content, and anyway convincing me wouldn't make any practical difference, as there clearly are many other pragmaticians Fastifex 11:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that we need to have consistency. Imagine if you bought an encyclopedia only to find some entries had Times New Roman and others used Garamond font; it's important that the whole site have consistent strutcture and style. I appreciate that you are adding content, and I hope you can appreciate that others enjoy adding structure. But, in the end, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. And a disambig page is a guide to get you somewhere else quickly. Who is going to search for "poop" when they are looking for an article on insider trading? That's the question that must be asked for every entry. And entries that are dead-ends with no linked articles are clearly not appropriate. I appreciate you responding, and if you are willing to work with us we can make this page (and all other dab pages) conform to the Wiki-style, let's do it! - grubber 15:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more! I hesitated whether to mention fonts and other 'graphical' aspects, which to my mind are the most ludicrous of concerns, I really wouldn't mind if there were 19 fonts on every page if that meant a few percent more information. Besides, that touches a more fundamental difference in approach: the formalists tend to think Wikipdia should be modelled on 'the printed encyclopaedia' (I suppose you dream about a printable version one couldn't tell apart from Britannica?) while I say that is utterly pointless, a virtual medium IS different and should try to make the most of our advantages, which depend on flexibility; while a printed edition has to be a commercially viable, physically finished product as it must be sold for a relatively high price, and may take up several book shelves, we change every second; while Britannica has one of the best reputations in world history (in the same celestial mega-super-league as the BBC, second only to God for believers) thanks to two centuries of input from the academic world elite we are an ant army without the stearing instinct. The whole idea that an encyclopaedia and a dictionary are and have to be completely different things stems from the same print-minded simplism while it isn't even trough in print: for example I often use a Larousse (the leading French lexicography) which combines scetion of both types, and it's an eye-opener how hard it is to tell in which you'll find what you're looking for, heck sometimes even they feel the need to refer from the one to the other. I realize my orginal litany above didn't go into the operation aspect of disambiguation in detail, but it was long enough already and you can find it in my Junta-discours to GFlores. Once again, you're thinking to linear: I don't just go to a disambiguation page when I now what I'm looking for, when I don't kow poop can mean insider trading (and we allophones are very unlikely to, which goes for most slang, and then often even for native speakers of English from other parts of the world, say British versus American English) I need to find it under poop, as I can't guess where else to look (and the success rate on wiktionary is, sadly, miserable, barely worth a try), THAT is when disambiguation is at at its MOST usefull!! In my opinion (never humble, always sincere) you're the one who (I don't doubt in good faith, and please don't take any of this personal, we don't even know eachother) seems not be asking the right question for the reader's real needs. What I realy take offense to (but I'll assume not personal either) is the suggestion that while the pragmatists add content (thank you, that's the end-goal, the form is just a medium) we wouldn't bother with structure! I can honestly say I very often find I'm (one of or) the contributor(s) putting most effort into structuring, especially in content pages (e.g. Emperor was little more then a illegibly long list of case sections, till I devised the more complex, logical-historical structure that still prevails with a few good, content-sensitive adaptations; that takes hours and lots of background, but it sort of carries its own reward: being forced to tie in all the piece of the jigsaw puzzle helps to see what(s missing in the story, so it inspires content improvement, and sometimes actually brings new insights for the editor himself), and in disambiguation it's vital, even as important as the content precisely because that's the only thing that makes it navigationable. The difference is, again, we try to use structure flexibly, fitting it to the logic of reality, however asymmetrical that may be, as formal, more linear 'consistency' as sugegsted by rules is a luxury that must be sacrificed whenever incompatible. Consistency is definitely a complete illusion with millions of contributors, weeding out errors and fitting everything logically (so often structured) is probably about the highest ambition that realistically can be approached. Fastifex 07:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I won't make nearly as long as a reply as yours (because I don't think either of us want that), but I would just like to say that although the WP:MOSDAB is not policy, it being a guideline still holds considerable weight. I agree that rules should be broken, but this doesn't appear to be the case as there are several editors who feel the changes should be kept to maintain consistency and clarity. I will revert to the revision with my changes unless you further object. Gflor e sTalk 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course I object (see above) and of course there will be further reverts. I haven't read a single indication that this Talk exercise inspired anyone to a constructive element of compromise, not that I dared to hope for that (well, at least it's sorty of therapeutical to 'write it off my chest'): our opinions are almost diametrically opposed in several respects and I can't see how we could reconcile them, so Grubbers 'invitation' to work on it seems, well, unworkable to me: how? One more sincere opinion, though: you can't really expect a representative response from the pragmatical camp, as we by definition care much less for guidelines, so we are unlikely to comment on them. Anyhow, I'm not a 'democrat', the number of supporters of an idea I can't in intellectual sincerity share will never turn me, and I doubt whether any guidelies from a non-legislator (of course it's different where ecncial needs or legimitmate publmic authorities are concerned) really hold half as much weight as you presume for most Wikipedians, I rather suspect most don't even bother to read them at all (which is wrong, some definitely contain good ideas one really learns from, whether universally applicable or not) and countless are the edits that clearly suggest they certaibnly don't try to follow them to a significant degree (with or without logical justification, I'm in no way defending many pointless aberrations) Fastifex 07:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your passion Fastifex, but you should read WP:DAB again. Specifically, a dab page is a page to resolve ambiguity not list out every possible meaning. I understand that WP is not a print encyclopedia, but it is also not a dictionary. If you feel the Wiktionary is lacking, then help fix it. But using WP to compensate for Wiktionary is improper. Listen, I am all about compromise, and I agree the rules are not set in stone. If you look at my edit of the page, I didn't make all the changes I thought were necessary for compliance, because I believe in some latitude (many pages I edit bend the rules a bit, and I'll give examples if you like). However, un-wikilinked entries on a dab page are entirely inappropriate. - grubber 20:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're going to go about this unilaterally, is that right? Your opinion on guidelines is disconcerting, as they are established by many Wikipedians and your utter disregard for them is just plain wrong. Just because you don't care guidelines does not make them worthless. Furthermore, you seem to have the mentality of having it your way without any concern for what's best for Wikipedia, what others think, and what the guidelines suggest. Gflor e sTalk 18:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 'going to' do anything, I continue what I always did, and what Wikipedia needs: volunteering some of my time, knowledge and intellectual capabilities to contribute content. My opinions, like anyone else's, are my business, my responsability in conscience, and subordinating them even to a unanimous vote of the UN General Assembly would be wrong- if greater minds then any wikipedian had done so, science would never have progessed and the world would be condemned to eternal ignorance an stupidity. What I can be judged on are my actions, in Wiki-context my edits, which doubtlessly will sometimes be wrong (even the papacy only claimed infalliability on 4 counts, none intellectually significant), regardless of my intentions. But if I'm such an ogre and a danger -to-what? the non-existent Wiki-society? it doens't matter- how can it then be that my edits (we're still on Talk:Poop) are not only followed by the pragmatists, but shortly after your comment above, GFlores, I read on my watchlist: "Poop; 21:15 Gflores (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 70.146.40.160 (talk) to last version by Fastifex)" - apparently my 'plain wrong' methods resulted in something you don't want to revert. A bit further I find you again, with a 'clean up' (I hate that word, as if the previous version were dirty) of Rana, another disambiguation page, which again leaves the essence of my edit unaltered (there's some minor changes I consider neither necessary nor problematic, so again the difference in fact is minute (I put in 'in zoology', and I'm fairly happy even if that stays out): so you're condemning me for my honest opinion, which I only stated here because you asked for that, while you don't seem to care for its actual outcome, but apparently I still am the dangerous one, for not paying lip service to guidelines -to vague to be enforcable, to strict to be universally applicable, a problem with many rules in the real world to- and procedures. I'm not sure what 'unilaterally' is supposed to mean here, but I'm hardly on my own as countless edits 'on my side' are made be many others, I've taken into consideration every fact presented to me (none over here) and apparently my work on Poop (ironically a subject I don't even care for much, for me it's a spin-off of another non-core business page) is done, even so well that even you don't seem to object to the present outcome any more. So think of my what you want, don't claim you alone care more for others opinions (but that's no more essential then anyone's opinions) and don't pretend you or any procedure can determine what's best for Wikipedia, just keep on editing in conscience, as it seems to work out far better in the end then our theoretical positions appear to allow. Fastifex 22:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Want to clean the poop up? Pick yours up first

[[[[****************************************************************************************

"Poo" or "poop" as you say, is also known as, "Dookie". You could be, not able to dookie. If so go to the hospital, as they have things to help. DOOKIE POO. How to clean up poop.
 * ]]]]

If you are cleaning up your poo, poop, and dookie. Staralis, the area. as it could cuase bactieria. wich is not good for your health and mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GRR6 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection
Just looking at the edit history it is obvious that this page is very often vandalized. I think it should be protected; does anyone else think so too? FL a RN (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's nothing, have you seen the history for penis or elephant? Yeah, this page gets vandalized, but it's easy to keep up with. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 00:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the edits to duck are vandalism and reverts. The idea of ducks attracts an amazing amount of sillyness. Anthony Appleyard 06:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And don't get me started about cow. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 08:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I know the people who did this
I know the people who did this,and it is a catholic school that I attend, I have talked to the dean of punishment and they have issued a suspension warning for any further destructive editing. The IP address starts with 217, they have edited sevral articles and I can assure you, it will not happen again. Wiki staff know who the "217" computer is. The school has also requested that you closely watch the editing coming from it and issue a ban for the next destructive editing. I am the "appealer" for them, so if anyone has suggestions/complaints contact me. (Im freakin 12 and im an appealer) Why whould the school care for something that happens on the internet?

BABY TALK: Kalena Talk
I can see that the issue of whether or not this page should be protected, who protects it and how it is to be organized has caused great distention among Wikipedia users. As a baby I am an expert in Poop, both the word the slang meaning. Poop in all forms falls within my jurisdiction. Therefore i propose a new code. I have attempted to clean up this page and make it look a little bit nicer and include some of the suggestions. I use the word "clean" because as a baby i know disorder, and this page is disorderly. I have listed the changes.

First Change (poop = stern, I don't think so)
Originally, the stern, the rear-end of a ship, opposite the bow; hence: *poop deck and poop cabin (located at the stern) *Puppis (the original Latin word), an astronomical constellation


 * Poop does not refer in any way to the back of a ship. You can call the it the aft section, the stern, or just the back of a ship, but you would never hear a sailor calling the back of the ship the poop.
 * In all my research I have not found any real evidence that Puppis (the star consolation) has anything to do with poop or the word poop. If anyone has any actual research to support this argument, I would love to see it.  The only possible evidence I found was |this poorly written letter to TECHWR-L from "Goober Writer " saying that Puppis means the back of a ship so it is the derivative of poop.
 * The closest derivative I could find is the Middle English word "Poupen" or "Popen" which meant to fart. I believe this should be included in a small comment about the syntax of the word. Although to some this may be leaning towards dictionary work, the syntax we will cover is very concise.
 * Therefore I propose a change to this section so that it is broken up into it's two rightful sections then reads as follows:

==Syntax of poop== *From Middle English "Poupen" or "Popen" which meant to break wind. *May be used as a Noun, Adjective, Adverb or verb. (occasionally used in the form of an onomatopoeia). == Historical references to poop:== *The poop deck and poop cabin are found on older wooden ships aft of the steering station. Poop is gross and discusting people at my school look for poop in the stalls. Once they find it they lock people in it. I was lockeed in the stall once and they made me eat it.

Second Change (too much slang in slang section)

 * The beginning of a section should be a section heading. The Wiki creators have given us many tools to use. There is a whole group of tools for organizing words. Please use them. "In Slang:" is not a sentence. It is barely a fraction of a sentence. Certainly not suitable for the beginning of a section.  I just added a the words "uses of" to make the section heading much more professional.
 * When someone say the word poop, the first thought that comes to people's mind is feces. Therefore I decided to rearrange this section and put feces at the top of the list.

*The act of defecation (as a bodily function of the animal/human rear-end, or an infantile onomatopoeia); also used as a verb It needs to be separated to give the flow of the article more logic and reasoning. first lets deal with feces then move on to other less well known poopy items.
 * The above bullet point has four ideas smashed into it.
 * 1) Poop is used to refer to defecation.
 * 2) Poop (defecation) can be from animals or humans or babies (Babies are human by the way).
 * 3) Poop can be used in the form of an onomatopoeia.
 * 4) Poop can be used as a verb.
 * Does "toilet humor" really make it into this subject mater. After talking with some of my baby peers, I have heard arguments from both sides.  Some say in order to preserve the integrity of the wikipedia it should be left out. Other have put up strong arguments about maintaining truthfulness and accuracy and just to make sure that the presentation is profesional and tasteful.  Therefore i will leave it in as tactfully and tastefully as i can.
 * therefore i propose this rewrite:

==Poop:== *Feces or Stool: Solid waste passed through the colon and the anus during defecation. Poop is the result of the digestive track. It is made up of water, dead bacteria, cholesterol and fats, and other indigestible materials. The odor associated with poop comes from the collection of bacteria within the feces. Diarrhea (liquid poop) and constipation (hard poop    or pain while expelling poop) may be signs of a digestive disorder. *Scatology The medical study of poop. Usually practiced by proctologists, laboratory technicians and some veterinarians. *The act of becoming fatigued or of fatiguing another (usually as past    participle; I am pooped) *an older term for the [Inside information]]. Mostly referring to negative information about a    subject, person or company. *Poop is often the subject of jokes and quips. Bathroom humor is related to    human or animal excrements (Feces, urination, flatulence).

Third Change (eatable poop?)
In fiction: *A soft drink and later a candy bar in the cartoon series Invader Zim *A soft drink and later a candy bar in the cartoon series Invader Zim Therefore I propose this rewrite: ==Popular Culture Appearances of Poop== In the cartoon series Invader Zim, "POOP" is a brand of soft drink and candy bar.
 * Here is where i need some help. I have no clue as to whether this information is accurate or not.I am just a baby, i don't know about stuff like this, although it seems to me that the only people who should know about this are three year olds... so i guess I'll wait three years. Since it made the final cut i will assume that it is accurate. Yet the wording is horrible and needs to be changed like one of my bad diapers.
 * Instead of saying "In Fiction" lets try something that actually forms a sentence or at least a part of a sentence.
 * What is wrong with this sentence? It has no subject!!!!!!!!! It has nothing for its actions or adjectives to act on.
 * Simple, yet profesional!

Fourth Change
The acronym POOP may stand for: *Perl Object-oriented programming *Perl Object-Oriented Persistence *Post Object-Oriented Programming *Propane, Oxygen/Oxygen, Propane (mnemonic for safe order for turning on/off a blowtorch: see    oxyacetylene) *People Order Our Patties. A quote from SpongeBob SquarePants The acronym POOP may stand for: ==POOP as an Acronym== *Propane, Oxygen/Oxygen, Propane (mnemonic for safe order for turning on/off a blowtorch: see    oxyacetylene) *People Order Our Patties. A quote from SpongeBob SquarePants *Post Object-Oriented Programming *Perl Object-oriented programming *Perl Object-Oriented Persistence
 * This whole paragraph seems decently organized. I did a little reordering to make it all fit and a little rewording to make it flow with the rest of the page.
 * In an encyclopedia you never want to have the word "May." May means it could but it may not. this casts doubt on what you're saying and will cause readers to loose interest.
 * Therefore I propose this rewrite:

Fifth and Final Change (order in the poop)

 * Now that we have our sections all squared away lets order this beast!
 * We have 5 sections below is an outline of the sections.(I edited them in this order, but thats not necessarily the final order we want)
 * 1) Syntax of Poop
 * 2) Historical References to Poop
 * 3) Poop
 * 4) Popular Culture Appearances of Poop
 * 5) POOP as an Acronym
 * The fist one should be the best general description of poop. That would be Number 3 on the above list.
 * The second should be historical references to poop, because it gives back round to the word. That would be Number 2 on the above list.
 * The third should be syntactical references of poop, because it gives some logic to how poop can be used. That would be Number 1 on the above list.
 * The fourth should be popular culture references of poop so give culture to the word. That would be Number 4 on the above list.
 * The fifth should be the poop acronyms as a final list of terms. That would be Number 5 on the above list.
 * Below is the final outline in the order that flows best.


 * 1) Poop
 * 2) Historical References to Poop
 * 3) Syntax of Poop
 * 4) Popular Culture Appearances of Poop
 * 5) POOP as an Acronym

Here is my final poop page!
START

Poop

 * Feces or Stool: Solid waste passed through the colon and the anus during defecation. Poop is the result of the digestive track. It is made up of water, dead bacteria, cholesterol and fats, and other indigestible materials. The odor associated with poop comes from the collection of bacteria within the feces. Diarrhea (liquid poop) and constipation (hard poop or pain while expelling poop) may be signs of a digestive disorder.
 * Scatology The medical study of poop. Usually practiced by proctologists, laboratory technicians and some veterinarians.
 * The act of becoming fatigued or of fatiguing another (usually as past participle; I am pooped)
 * an older term for the Inside information. Mostly referring to negative information about a subject, person or company.
 * Poop is often the subject of jokes and quips. Bathroom humor is related to human or animal excrements (Feces, urination, flatulence).

Historical References to Poop

 * The poop deck and poop cabin are found on older wooden ships aft of the steering station.

Syntax of Poop:

 * From Middle English "Poupen" or "Popen" which meant to break wind.
 * May be used as a Noun, Adjective, Adverb or verb. (occasionally used in the form of an onomatopoeia).

Popular Culture Appearances of Poop

 * In the cartoon series Invader Zim, "POOP" is a brand of soft drink and candy bar.

POOP as an Acronym
disambig
 * Propane, Oxygen/Oxygen, Propane (mnemonic for safe order for turning on/off a blowtorch: see oxyacetylene)
 * People Order Our Patties. A quote from SpongeBob SquarePants
 * Post Object-Oriented Programming
 * Perl Object-oriented programming
 * Perl Object-Oriented Persistence

END

Final Words (small slap on the wrist)
I don't care if you are twelve or twenty or two or two months, insulting remarks directed towards people instead of directed towards the arguments is just not cool. There are alot of things on this page that are insulting to one another, to your fellow wiki users. Some people here have been acting like they are the "kings of the wiki", and some just acted like jerks. Gentlemen, and ladies if you're reading this, PLEASE STOP TRASH TALK! stop the vandalism, and stop the stupid 'i'm smarter than you' junk.

In fact most of the comments here have been about stupid wiki rules rather than how to make the page better. We need serious people for this task. people who are not afraid to do the research and find out fact from fiction.

Thank you for your time. The code for the new page can be obtained by editing this discussion page. 11/23/06

BABY TALK:
I have implemented the changes mentioned above. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. A special thanks to whoever unprotected this page so i could make these changes. I will be monitoring this page for vandalism. Thank you.Kalena Talk 12/2/06

Honeypot?
This article seems to be a real draw for silly vandals. At least they are messing with an article on poop instead of, say Political philosophy. Maybe we should turn it into a honeypot and have it automatically block any IP that trys to edit it (other than reverts) :-) Kenj0418 23:58, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Post a pic?
you cannot edit this page. May I post a picture of my ass in this article? no, you may not. that is called pornography.


 * If you'd like a (marginally) serious answer, the feces page would probably be a better choice, since this is a disambiguation page. I'm sure one photo would be (more than) sufficient Kenj0418 06:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

poop
it needs a pic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.186.215.93 (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

poop
THe version that kalena lyon had was better then the version now. It looked better and was more profesional!

Geographic scope
''* The act of defecation (in the US)
 * Flatulence, commonly known as farting (in the UK)''

I'd say that "pooping" would refer to defecation in the UK as well. As for the farting thing, I've never ever heard pooping refer to farting.

--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Poop!!
What the... Why didnt you stick with feces or stool? I mean this is kind of immature... Bloodhonor 04:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC) POOPhere
 * It's a disambiguation page. You seem to be unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should just redirect this to Defecation. I mean, who's going to search Poop and expect oxyacetylene to show up? C Teng (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

British usage and North American usage
Being British I'm aware of the meanings of this word related to nautical usage. In American usage the word seems to occupy the position held in Britain by the related word "poo". It occurs to me that we could research the different usage in different English-speaking countries. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My sister eats a lot of this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.6.239 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting that someone's sister eats decks. There's always one, isn't there? I think you'll find that apart from most of Canada, the other English speaking areas will follow the British usage. The UK uses pooper-scooper simply because the press used it, and it rhymes. There is another poop, too. Toad of Toad Hall used to go "Poop, poop!" when deprived of a car. Peridon (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)