User talk:Ed Poor

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

Personal comments at the bottom of the page, please. All others, please contribute at Wikipedia talk:votes for deletion. --Ed

enjoy

enjoy the vacation! Gabrielsimon 01:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, G. Take care. Uncle Ed 01:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

I can go to bed happy now that I know I've caused at least one person to have to change his pants. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Cyrius, returning the favor ... See Got Deleted at Ward's Wiki. Uncle Ed 12:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Your actions

Adam, I'm on vacation till August 1st. So I archived my user talk page. This is not quite the same as "deleting".

I'm not sure how archiving one's own talk page is an "abuse", but if it will make lodging a complaint easier for you (and reading it easier for the arbcom), I'll gladly copy it to this subpage: /Adam Carr. Uncle Ed 10:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Accurate contributions

(see archives below)

I'm going on vacation today. Please talk to an active Mediator (see Mediation Committee). Uncle Ed 13:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Archives

• /archive - everything up till yesterday
• /Adam Carr - the recent unpleasantness
• /Nick Adams - referred to Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation

Vacation Notice

I am on vacation until August 1st.

Until then, I'm referring all matters to Dr. Wiki. Please follow his prescription to the letter. Uncle Ed 15:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Your actions

In response to your recent message: I won't be conducting any discussions on any topic with you until I get a reply on my Talk page (which, as you well know, is where replies should be made) to my complaint about your unjustified blocking of me. Adam 06:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In fact now that I discover that you are a member of the cult of the corrupt fascist Sun Myung Moon I have no desire to communicate further with you at all. Adam 07:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

again,. check the eidt history to see if its really how it happened. Gabrielsimon 07:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A sysop protected a page where she was "warring"

I think that User:Deb has misused sysop privileges by protecting the page Lady Catherine Grey after herself twice moving the article from its original location "Catherine Grey" to her this new location. She admits having done the protection, after her own second move (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=19381941&oldid=19331143). The renaming history is recent and is available easily at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Catherine_Grey&action=history
My impression is that Deb deliberately and knowingly uses the admin power in this "content dispute" to push her own opinion onto others. The article had been in its old location for long time, apparently years. Its (first) renaming came only very recently, made by Deb. Rather disturbingly, Deb had not bothered to discuss her intention to move at the discussion Talk:Catherine Grey before her first renaming (there was e.g no vote), and she did not properly discuss it even before her second move. (Relevant naming conventions are saying things that "Catherine Grey" is acceptable and the heading needs not necessarily be "Lady Catherine Grey": there are two conditions in naming convention for putting "lady", both requirements should be fulfilled. There is thus content dispute, and its outcome is actually not relevant to decide whether Deb abused the admin powers. I am for the old heading, and I believe it to be the more correct one.) One small point is that apparently Deb had not made any contribution to the article before her renaming - this speaks of an editor who is focused on, not content of this article, but making her own version of form to prevail.
I have also earlier came to see Deb's actions and style of comments. She shows a pattern of not being capable of presenting reasons, and she seems to read policies and conventions in a loose manner, not fully grasping what such guideline actually says. Deb appears to not want to answer properly, substantively, to questions or to presented arguments, rather she gives sort of platitudes. An example is "...were agreed before you arrived" which implies an attempt to prevail by some sort of seniority (though, figuratively speaking, seniority could also be e.g senility).
Anyway, Deb's said action in protecting a page she had herself been warring over seems to be such a misuse that deserves some work. May I leave this matter to your capable hands in higher administration of WP. 217.140.193.123 10:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear anonymous Finland IP address user 217.140.193.123

I see your edit on Uncle Ed's page here. Please be aware that he is on vacation right now, and I think he comes back on 01 august 2005, but I am not certain. I hope this helps.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

New Arbitration case

Heya,

I have now opened the requested Arbitration case in which you are involved, here; please add any evidence you think would be useful to us in coming to our judgement onto the evidence sub-page.

Thank you very much in advance for your efforts,

James F. (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I left a long comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master/Evidence, even though you'll probably think I'm barking up the wrong tree. Uncle Ed 19:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Unprotected

Since you are on vacation, this notice probably won't do any good, but Template:Unprotected, which you created, has been listed for deletion at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 14:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Already noted at User_talk:Ed_Poor/archive#Template:Unprotected (SEWilco 16:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC))

Welcome back from vacation. Template:Unprotected is still listed for deletion at Templates for deletion with a 6 to 3 vote (66%). There is a pretty big backlog at TFD, but someone will probably close discussion on the template soon. FYI: The template was nominated by User:Tony Sidaway, who was recently listed at WP:RFC for his admin actions at WP:VFD. (It should also be noted that there were some irregularities in that the template only recently had the {{tfd}} template added, rather than added when nominated as per TFD instructions.) BlankVerse ∅ 17:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Locked Pages

Welcome back, Since there is zero activity both on the discussion pages of both nuclear and price anderson - I would suggest the page locking be lifted. The Energy Act will be passed in the next few days (it appears) and there weill be new information which needs to be included in both articles. Locking the pages endlessly is simply a reinvention of the wikipedia. Benjamin Gatti

Userfying WP:Illustrating a point

Hello, there, and yes, I know you're on vacation. I'm closing an old VfD on Wikipedia:Illustrating a point, and by my count, the votes are 4 delete, 2 keep, 5 userfy, and 1 merge. Thus, it seems to me, the best course of action is to userfy the page, which I am about to do under User:Ed Poor/Illustrating a point. Hopefully this doesn't make you mad at me; I'm just trying to clear the backlog. You can yell at me when you get back if you like ;). --Scimitar ^parley 19:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

i would yell, but my caps lock key is broken so i will just have to whisper Uncle Ed 18:45, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

From PS

Ed Poor, my mentor, I am so glad to see you, buddy! I look forward to being more and more like you every day, my friend! This is a joyous day, Ed Poor, I am back! Woo-hoo! Plautus satire 03:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please, no, anything but that! (I was thinking of coming back early, but after this news I'm considering taking an extra week! ;-) Uncle Ed 23:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

piles and piles and piles and piles and piles ... o my

this doesnt seem fair to have to come back to that from a vacation... but hey, iom not banned... also please look at www.gabrielsimon.com tell me what you think of some of the content. Gabrielsimon 23:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

how about category specific bans?

instead of page specific bans, ifpeople start annoying others accross many articles, we could, for example, ban them from the mythology category. Gabrielsimon 23:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

How about, if they start annoying others, we try to teach them to be polite? If that fails, we warn them, then block them, then ban them: whatever it takes to preserve civility. "Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right." Uncle Ed 15:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

FAC

You may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sociocultural_evolution, as you have discussed earlier version of this article on its talk page some time ago. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Userblock

Ed: When you use {{userblock}} note that if the user has SPACE characters in their name, you must use underscores to get the block log part to work. (see Template talk:Userblock). BlankVerse ∅ 17:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right, sometimes I forget to add the underscores. I wish there was a way to include them automatically. Maybe I should ask Magnus Manke if he has time to fix this, because there are a few similar cases where lack of underscores causes links to break.

Is there anything at help:underscore? Uncle Ed 18:44, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of VFD page

I think this may very well land you in a heap of trouble, Ed.  Denelson83  20:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow Ed, impressive! I'm with you, congratulations for boldness. Ignore the carpers... William M. Connolley 20:16:00, 2005-08-01 (UTC).

Deleting VfD

I'm sure you're going to get lots and lots more comments on this issue, and I don't know if you'll even consider this, but for what it's worth.

You do not get a free license to screw with the rest of Wikipedia because you've been here a long time and have such impeccable judgement, if you do say so yourself. Undeleting VfD, which you know would inevitably be necessary, turns out to be not a trivial task under the server load we're having. In the meantime, a considerable part of Wikipedia is broken, with no explanation to people how or why this is so.

But hey, everybody will realize this bold action masks an important point of discussion the rest of us is just too stupid to catch on to, right? How many people read the mailinglist, anyway? Or maybe it's really just a private joke between you and David Gerard.

That's my personal take. I'm sure you're going to pull Ed-Poorisms long after I've left the project (if I ever decide to do so) and I'm also sure this sort of comment is generally not what you care about, but I felt the need to leave it anyway.

And I didn't even mention WP:POINT once! Impressive, eh? Ooops.... JRM · Talk 20:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Missed the fun. Good job Ed! All we really need are Speedy tags and copyvio tags - almost everything else can be solved with a redirect. Guettarda 20:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, just deleting VfD really showed that. JRM · Talk 20:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

No, no no! I distinctly remember leaving a REDIRECT there, which goes to Wikipedia:Requests for deletion. Isn't this right? Uncle Ed 20:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Not when I was looking at it. This changes matters only slightly, however: as an admin, would you not know placing a redirect does not require the page to be deleted? Were you trying to prevent any non-admin from undoing your action, or something? 82.92.119.11 21:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Disrespectful act

WP:POINT. That was an act of disrespect Ed, and you lose a lot of respect for things like that. Hope you feel it was worth it.--Tznkai 20:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I almost forgot

"How about, if they start annoying others, we try to teach them to be polite? If that fails, we warn them, then block them, then ban them: whatever it takes to preserve civility. "Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right." Uncle Ed 15:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)"

Its a privledge you havn't earned evidently.--Tznkai 20:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you certainly are explaining this to me politely. Would you please add clearly to that?

Was there something or someone I was supposed to "respect"? Such as the principle that policy should be voted on, rather than reasoned out? (We could debate this.) Uncle Ed 20:13, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

You were supposed to respect the barnraising, cooperative, plural, and otherwise non unilateral spirit of the community.--Tznkai 20:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I just rented Witness (film) again, so I can show the DVD to a group of people whom I am instructing in community-building, cooperation, and "living for the sake of others". My favorite part is the barnraising scene. I believe in cooperation and pluralism.

I deleted vfd because it retards all these things. Please read David Gerard's post (quoted in its entirety at talk:Requests for deletion. Uncle Ed 21:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

VfD

1. What was that supposed to have accomplished?
   • People say it was long overdue. I fixed what was broken.
2. How many more pointless abuses of power do you expect the community to endure before there is a backlash?
   • My bold deletion was intended to put an end to the abuse of vfd power. "I am the backlash."
3. Do you realize that you have given not only yourself, but other old-timers a black eye?
   • No, please explain below. I really respect your opinion.
4. What would you like to say to the newbies who were confused when they couldn't find the page and thought they had done something wrong?
   • I thought I left a redirect with clear instructions. What happened?
5. If someone else had done that, would you block them for disruption?
   • Gosh, no, I'd do just what you are doing (if I disagreed, as you seem to do): talk it over with them.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Delete and RFD

I'm sorry, that was a mistake in my judgement. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)