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)

I've had enough!

I'm feeling rather unappreciated, of late. Maybe I'll just take another vacation. :-(

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD for my parting shot. Goodbye! Uncle Ed 11:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

why leave when i just got back? Gabrielsimon 15:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dude! Are you off suspension again, lol? What am I going to do with you ... Uncle Ed 16:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Ed, don't delete an RFC about something you did. Fine upstanding contributors to this site, such as yourself, do not endeavour to supress discussion about things they have done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, I wish I had seen this notice before my second delete. I'll abstain from a third, simply on your say-so.

But the rules (which everyone is so fond of) approve of my deletion of the vfd rfc, if not of the original deletion of vfd.

Please do not chide me for breaking rules and for following them. That would make me crazy. Uncle Ed 17:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have listed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD on VfU. Please don't delete RfC pages where you are involved. DES ^(talk) 17:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed, nobody deletes their own RFCs. Make your case and leave it for someone else to delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Add that rule (even post facto) to the RFC-removal policy, and I'll gladly follow it. I removed the RFC because it was in itself a violation of the rules.

Don't you care about rules? Or did I compute the 48 hours wrong? Uncle Ed 17:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

You did, Your timestamp is 17:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC), it must be 21:07 3 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I read the rules on this, you have to wait 'till 21:07 3 August 2005 (UTC) . (which is still a couple of hours away), because folks get 48 hours to get their business in order. I suggest you let someone neutral do the deletion this time. :-) Hope this helps! Kim Bruning 17:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

See my apology below. Uncle Ed 17:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, though the RFC is worded in particular about your deletion of VFD, the broader point is that you are not exempt from the standards of behavior that everyone else follows. This is a recurring theme, and many (dozens?) of people have taken up this matter with you in various forms at various times, beginning some time prior to my participation here. You up and deleted VFD, well, fine, you better be prepared to take your lumps from the community. Deleting your own RFC is childish and, coming from you, is a terrible example to set for the rest of the project. If you're going to be the elder statesman around here, then start acting like it.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

See my apology below. Uncle Ed 17:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies

1. Kim, I'm sorry, I messed up the time zone thing. The "history" link of the page is 4 hours off. I mistakenly relied on that, and then deleted the vfd rfc 4 hours early.
2. Uninvited, if I understand you correctly it was not the 'letter of the law' that was being discussed (pursuant to the specific incident named in the RFC), but a broader pattern or "recurring theme" implicitly obvious to all but those with tunnel vision. It was not for 'this shooting' but for 'shooting from the hip' that the RFC was started. I'm sorry that I failed to make enough effort to appreciate this point.

Shut Up

Just shut up. Don't type on wikipedia. Something! Shush! I'll apologize later, talk to me on irc or send me email before you say or do anything. Kim Bruning 17:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, we spoke. I shall now do something, if you don't mind. Uncle Ed 19:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose everyone had their own problems with what you did at VFD. I myself was not particularly concerned about the "rulez." Rulez are tools and have their place. My concerns were:

1. Due to the extensive history of VFD, the deletion and subsequent undeletion bogged the database. This sort of thing has happened before and you should have at least considered the possibility that technical problems could ensue from your edits.
2. It appeared that, overall, you were acting impulsively. We just spent weeks discussing and voting on some fairly minor tweaks to the criteria for speedy deletion. Would it not have made sense to at least discuss what to do with VFD for a day or two? Sure you got everyone's attention. But wasn't there a better way?
3. By deleting VFD you have exacerbated the perception in the community that there are two sets of rules: One for the senior admins, and one for everybody else. Of course you can get away with it, but demonstrating that you can do so alienates people who are getting their hands slapped for comparatively minor faux pax. Look at how much reaction User:Master Thief Garrett got when he deleted the Ass hook article (and several others of equal long-term value to the project) out-of-process.
4. All the business about it being "against the rules" is a red herring. I think the tone of the RFC should have made that clear to anyone reading it with an open mind. I hope you'll find a way to recover from the wikistress of this all, and take a lesson from it, and stick around to continue the great contributions you make here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand all four of your points. I wish I had thought about the database stress of deleting vfd; I had forgotten that it really is a delete, as opposed to a "mark as hidden" function. If it ever gets deleted in the future, we better do it off-peak. I'm ashamed that as an experienced database programmer, I neglected the performance aspect. Your point about two sets of rules is also well taken. I'm not sure what to do about that at the moment, but making it worse is certainly not on my agenda! I must ponder this point, because I had also been neglecting it. I also regret my utter lack of perception, of the tone of the RFC. In retrospect, it seems ridiculous that I should approach it with a closed mind; re-reading it has been rather painful to me, chastening, and wounding my pride. Therefore, I think instead of it being deleted it better be archived somewhere handy; I certainly won't be the one to delete it when 5:10 P.M. (my time) comes rolling around. It has been somewhat stressful, but your mention of "hand slapping" and "alienation" puts this into perspective. I'm not supposed to come here for my own amusement, but to work on a project which is really of planetary importance. Uncle Ed 19:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

VfD Deleted

I've been out for awhile and catching up. I gather you simply deleted VfD meanwhile. I applaud the action and gather you've taken some heat for it -- but I would like to know why you can do this and survive the action at all. I simply nominated TfD for deletion and spent weeks in socialist struggle session hell. — Xiong熊talk* 18:17, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

I went and read the article you linked; that is horrible! But to answer your question, I only survive because:

1. I believe in the project
2. I will do what I'm told (after enough brow-beating ;-)
3. ...and the community knows me well enough to take me at my word

Perhaps I should spend more time helping other people out of hell, rather than moaning about how Life Is Hell for me. Uncle Ed 19:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

BE QUIET ALREADY

Just because I'm friendly and polite doesn't mean I don't mean it. I explained my reasons, now you're messing with it. Don't Do That.

Kim Bruning 20:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It's 21:08 now - can I talk again, Kim? Uncle Ed 21:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free! :-) Kim Bruning 21:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Act

Sorry to pile this on you Ed.

Nuclear Power and Price-Anderson Act were unprotected. PAA is under mediation, nuclear power is not - but we advised against unprotecting it lest it spill over into PAA. Which it has done.

Ben made numerous changes to Nuclear Power. I reverted them with comments, including that nuclear power wasn't under mediation. Ben insists on linking the two - his last modification to PAA says he's quitting Mediation.

I'm afraid this is goig to Arbitration, as Ben said in his earlier message to you. What would you lik to say to this? Simesa 20:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I see Kim deleted the RFC

I just came online to answer your post in the discussion on the RfC (I haven't been able to go online since lunch), however, only minutes later Kim deleted it while I was working on it. I guess this means that further discussion would simply be academic and thus fruitless. It is obvious that you wont get any reprecussions more than you already have gotten (I am not reffering to the block, but to the critisism from the community). I will not press the point further (even though I still think that what you did was totally out of line, dont get me wrong :P). Lets shake hands and make peace shall we? gkhan 21:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

gkhan reluctantly extends hand

Ed Poor shakes extended hand

Well, it turns out that the Uninvited had undeleted the page so the discussion is still on. I will go write a response. However, it is still good that we shook hands on it anyway. gkhan 21:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Or not.......hmm, this is interesting, a deletion/undeletion war. I'll let them duke it out gkhan 22:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)